Domestic Violence Legal Frameworks And Landmark Judgments
1. Introduction to Domestic Violence in India
Domestic violence in India encompasses physical, emotional, sexual, and economic abuse within family or domestic relationships. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005 is the primary legislation that protects women from violence occurring within the home.
2. Legal Framework
(A) The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Objective:
To provide more effective protection to women who are victims of violence within the family.
Key Provisions:
Section 3 – Definition of Domestic Violence
Includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, and economic abuse.
Section 4 – Right to file a complaint
Any person (including social workers or relatives) can file a complaint on behalf of the aggrieved woman.
Section 12 – Application to the Magistrate
The aggrieved woman or a Protection Officer can present an application before the Magistrate seeking relief.
Section 17-22 – Reliefs available:
Right to residence (Sec. 17–19)
Protection orders (Sec. 18)
Monetary reliefs (Sec. 20)
Custody orders (Sec. 21)
Compensation orders (Sec. 22)
Section 23 – Power of Magistrate to grant interim and ex parte orders.
3. Landmark Judgments
Let’s now discuss five important cases that interpreted and expanded the scope of the PWDVA and related provisions.
Case 1: Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755
Facts:
Indra Sarma was in a long-term live-in relationship with V.K.V. Sarma.
After separation, she filed a complaint under the PWDVA claiming maintenance and protection.
The respondent argued that since the relationship was not a marriage, she was not an “aggrieved person.”
Legal Issue:
Whether a woman in a live-in relationship qualifies as an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the PWDVA.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that not all live-in relationships are entitled to protection under the Act.
However, if the relationship resembles marriage in duration, social recognition, and shared responsibility, it may fall under the “relationship in the nature of marriage.”
The Court laid down guidelines to determine whether a relationship qualifies for protection:
Duration of the relationship.
Shared household.
Pooling of resources and financial arrangements.
Domestic arrangements.
Sexual relationship.
Children (if any).
Socialization in public.
Significance:
This judgment clarified the scope of “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the PWDVA, protecting women in genuine live-in relationships.
Case 2: S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169
Facts:
The wife sought the right to reside in her matrimonial home, which was owned by her mother-in-law.
She claimed it was her “shared household” under Section 17 of the PWDVA.
Legal Issue:
Whether a woman has the right to reside in the house owned by her husband’s relatives.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that a “shared household” refers only to a house belonging to or rented by the husband, or a house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member.
Therefore, the wife cannot claim residence in property owned exclusively by her in-laws.
Significance:
This judgment restricted the interpretation of “shared household.”
However, later cases (like Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, 2020) expanded the definition to make it more woman-friendly.
Case 3: Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (2016) 10 SCC 165
Facts:
A mother and her two sons had a family dispute.
The sons challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the PWDVA, which defined “respondent” as an adult male person.
Legal Issue:
Whether restricting “respondent” to only adult males violates Article 14 (Right to Equality).
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down the words “adult male” from Section 2(q) as unconstitutional.
It held that both male and female persons can be respondents if they are in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved woman.
Significance:
This decision made the PWDVA gender-neutral regarding respondents.
Now, even mothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, or other female relatives can be held liable for domestic violence.
Case 4: Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020) 11 SCC 415
Facts:
Sneha Ahuja filed for residence rights under the PWDVA in a house owned by her father-in-law.
The trial court and High Court disagreed on whether the house was a “shared household.”
Legal Issue:
Can a woman claim residence in a house owned by in-laws if she lived there with her husband?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court overruled S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007).
It held that the term “shared household” includes any house where the aggrieved woman lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, regardless of ownership.
Ownership is not a prerequisite; the focus is on the nature of residence and domestic relationship.
Significance:
Strengthened women’s right to residence.
Broadened the interpretation of “shared household” to make the law more inclusive and practical.
Case 5: Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2018) 12 SCC 571
Facts:
The petitioner, a tribal woman, sought maintenance and relief under the PWDVA after separation.
The issue was whether she could claim relief under both PWDVA and Section 125 CrPC.
Legal Issue:
Can a woman claim maintenance under both PWDVA and Section 125 of the CrPC?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the PWDVA provides additional remedies and does not bar a woman from seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The two remedies are independent and cumulative.
Significance:
This case reinforced the complementary nature of different laws protecting women.
Women can simultaneously claim relief under multiple legal provisions.
4. Summary of Key Legal Principles
| Principle | Leading Case | Legal Effect |
|---|---|---|
| Live-in relationships can be protected if they resemble marriage | Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma | Expands scope of “domestic relationship” |
| Shared household includes residence even if not owned by husband | Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja | Strengthens residence rights |
| Both men and women can be respondents under PWDVA | Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Harsora | Makes law gender-neutral regarding perpetrators |
| Maintenance under PWDVA and CrPC are complementary | Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand | Allows multiple remedies |
| Property owned by in-laws not necessarily shared household (overruled) | S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra | Earlier restrictive interpretation |
5. Conclusion
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 represents a major step toward ensuring gender justice and equality within domestic spaces. Over the years, the judiciary has played a vital role in interpreting and expanding the Act to address changing social realities, ensuring that women’s rights to safety, shelter, and dignity are meaningfully protected.
RELATED Blog
0 comments