This article highlights landmark judgments that interpret and reinforce legal provisions to safeguard women against domestic violence in India.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) is a progressive piece of legislation designed to address the pervasive issue of domestic violence in India. Enacted to provide immediate relief and long-term safeguards for women, the Act goes beyond criminal penalties by offering civil remedies, such as protection orders, residence rights, financial assistance, and custody arrangements. It recognizes domestic violence as not only physical abuse but also emotional, economic,...

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) is a progressive piece of legislation designed to address the pervasive issue of domestic violence in India. Enacted to provide immediate relief and long-term safeguards for women, the Act goes beyond criminal penalties by offering civil remedies, such as protection orders, residence rights, financial assistance, and custody arrangements. It recognizes domestic violence as not only physical abuse but also emotional, economic, and psychological harm.

The Act covers relationships within a domestic setting, including marital and live-in partnerships, making it an inclusive framework for ensuring the safety and dignity of women. Over the years, judicial interpretations have played a crucial role in clarifying its provisions and expanding its scope. The following compilation of landmark cases highlights the evolution of legal thought under the PWDVA and its role in empowering women to live free from violence and fear.

10 Important Cases on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

1) Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma[1]

The petitioner, in a live-in relationship with the respondent, sought relief under the PWDVA after being abandoned. The case raised the issue of whether live-in relationships qualify as "domestic relationships" under the Act. The Supreme Court held that live-in relationships resembling marriage are covered under the PWDVA, provided they meet certain criteria. This judgment emphasized the Act’s applicability to non-marital relationships akin to marriage, ensuring protection for women in such situations.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

2) Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora[2]

In this case, a daughter filed a complaint under the PWDVA against her mother and brother. The issue was whether women could be named as respondents under Section 2(q) of the Act, which initially permitted complaints only against male relatives. The Supreme Court struck down the restrictive gender-specific language in Section 2(q), thereby allowing complaints against female relatives. This decision broadened the Act's scope, ensuring comprehensive protection for victims of domestic violence.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

3) Shyamlal Devda & Ors. v. Parimala[3]

The respondent-wife filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging harassment by her husband (Appellant No.14), in-laws (Appellants No.1 and 2), and other relatives across Chennai, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, where she temporarily resided. The key issues were whether the Bengaluru court had jurisdiction and whether the allegations against the extended family members were maintainable.

The Supreme Court upheld the Bengaluru court's jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Act but quashed proceedings against Appellants No.3 to 13 due to a lack of specific allegations, directing the case to proceed against the husband and in-laws only.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

4) Ajay Kumar v. Lata @Sharuti & Ors.[4]

The case arises from a dispute involving Ajay Kumar (appellant) and Lata @ Sharuti (respondent) concerning maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Lata, the widow of Vijay Kumar, claimed maintenance for herself and her minor child, alleging that the matrimonial home was part of a joint family property and that Ajay and Vijay carried on a joint business. Following Vijay's death, Lata alleged she was denied residence and financial support. The Trial Court awarded interim maintenance of ₹4,000 for Lata and ₹2,000 for her child, which the Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld. Ajay challenged the order, asserting no legal basis to fasten liability on him.

The Supreme Court, considering the complaint's averments and the interim nature of the maintenance order, held that sufficient material existed to sustain the award at this stage, clarifying that the order would not affect the final adjudication. The appeal was disposed of, directing arrears to be paid within four months.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

5) Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori & Anr.[5]

In Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Anr., the appellant challenged the dismissal of her petition under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 by the Bombay High Court, which upheld the Sessions Court's view that her application was not maintainable post-divorce, raising the issue of whether a divorced woman can seek relief under the Act for domestic violence committed during the subsistence of the marriage.

The Supreme Court held that domestic violence committed during a subsisting domestic relationship does not lose relevance post-divorce, affirming the appellant's entitlement to relief under the Act. The Court set aside the High Court and Sessions Court orders, reinstated the Magistrate's interim maintenance order, and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the case.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

6) V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot[6]

The Supreme Court addressed a dispute between a husband and wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent-wife sought a direction to reside in the shared household or a suitable alternative accommodation, as per the Court’s earlier order dated 07.02.2012, which required the petitioner-husband to provide her with a habitable portion of his residence.

The arrangement failed, and the wife sought permission to reside in her in-laws’ household. After hearing both parties, the Court, invoking Section 19(1)(f) of the Act, directed the husband to arrange alternative accommodation suitable to the wife’s status near her parents' residence by February 2013. If the husband failed, the wife was granted the right to secure her accommodation within Delhi, with the husband obligated to pay the rent.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

7) Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja[7]

This appeal by Satish Chander Ahuja challenges the Delhi High Court's judgment setting aside the Trial Court’s decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and remanding the case for fresh adjudication. The dispute arises from a complaint filed by Sneha Ahuja under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging abuse by her husband, Raveen Ahuja, and in-laws.

The property in question, purchased by the appellant in 1983, was claimed as a shared household. The Magistrate issued an interim order preventing alienation or dispossession without court orders. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to remand the case, dismissing the appeal without costs.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

8) S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra[8]

The Supreme Court addressed whether a wife can claim a right to reside in her in-laws' property as a "shared household" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Taruna Batra, after marital disputes, sought an injunction to reside in her mother-in-law's property, asserting it was her matrimonial home.

The Court noted that the property belonged exclusively to the mother-in-law and not to the husband, Amit Batra. It held that a "shared household" under Section 2(s) of the Act refers only to a residence owned, rented, or jointly held by the husband or his joint family. The Court rejected the claim, ruling that Taruna Batra had no right to reside in her in-laws' property and dismissed the High Court's contrary judgment, emphasizing that interpretations leading to societal chaos should be avoided. The appeal was allowed.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

9) Krishna Bhatacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury and Anr.[9]

The Supreme Court of India held that a judicially separated wife remains an "aggrieved person" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as the marital relationship is not severed. The Court ruled that the retention of a wife’s stridhan by the husband constitutes a "continuing offence," enabling the wife to claim it under Section 12 of the Act without being barred by limitation. Overturning the lower courts' decisions, the Court remitted the matter to the Magistrate for adjudication on merits, emphasizing the Act’s protective purpose and the need for sensitivity in cases involving domestic violence and stridhan claims.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

10) Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan[10]

The Supreme Court dealt with an appeal arising from the High Court's quashing of proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The appellant alleged acts of domestic violence by her husband and in-laws, citing incidents dating back to 2007. The High Court dismissed the case against the husband on the grounds of limitation, asserting that the application under Section 12 should have been filed within one year of the incident.

The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that proceedings under Section 12 of the Act are not subject to the limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC, as there is no offence until a breach of an order passed under the Act occurs. The Court emphasized that the Magistrate must independently evaluate whether the allegations constitute a continuing wrong. The appeal was allowed, reinstating the proceedings, and no opinion was expressed on the merits.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

References

[1] Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755

[2] Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165

[3] Shyamlal Devda & Ors. v. Parimala, Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2020

[4] Ajay Kumar v. Lata @Sharuti & Ors., Criminal Appeal No(S). 617 of 2019

[5] Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2014

[6] V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3916 of 2010

[7] Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, [2020] 12 S.C.R. 189

[8] S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, AIR 2007 SC 1118

[9] Krishna Bhatacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.1545 of 2015

[10] Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan, Criminal Appeal No. 627 of 2022

Arjun Mehta

Arjun Mehta

Arjun Mehta is a legal scholar and author specializing in Criminal Law. A graduate of Banaras Hindu University (BHU), he brings academic rigor and practical insights to his writing. Through his works, Mehta illuminates the complexities of criminal jurisprudence, making legal concepts accessible to both practitioners and general readers. His contributions have established him as a respected voice in criminal law discourse.

Next Story