Certain important Judgments regarding Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DVC) (DV Act) 2005 where High Courts have held or taken different views
Saraswathy Vs Babu
Citations: 2014 (1) RCR (Crl) 167 (SC)
Court Held that: Whether DV Act has retrospective effect, held – conduct of the party prior to coming into force of DV Act can be taken into consideration while passing an order. Where husband had turned out his wife from the matrimonial house prior to coming into force of the Act and did not allow her to enter the house, husband was held liable for his action under the Act on the ground that the offence continued after the coming into force the Act. The complained act fell under the definition of the DV Act.
Ravi Dutta Vs Kiran Dutta and anr
Citations: 2014 (5) RCR (Crl) 178 (DELHI HC)
Court Held that:
Domestic Incident Report (DIR) – court cannot bypass the mandate of Section 12 which requires consideration of DIR prior to passing any order u/s 12 of the Act.
Bhupinder Singh Mehra Vs St. of NCT Delhi
Citations: Crl.M.C.No. 1766/2010, 2010 (4) JCC 2939 (DELHI HC)
Court Held that: Cognizance/Notice to Respondent Before passing an order on application, the magistrate has to take into consideration the domestic incident report received from him by Protection Officer or Service Provider. Notice can be issued to respondent only after taking into consideration DIR.
Rakesh Sachdeva Vs St. of Jharkhand
Citations: 2011 (7) RCR (Crl) 2073 (Jharkhand HC)
Court Held that: Obligatory on the magistrate to take into consideration DIR if any at the time of passing any order on application. Not obligatory to call for DIR before issuing notice to respondent or passing any order on application.
Md. Basit Vs St. of Assam
Citations: Crl. Petition No.175/2011 (Guwahati HC)
Court Held that: Note obligatory for magistrate to call for report of protection officer or service provider at the stage of taking cognizance. However, if report available before magistrate, the same should be taken into consideration.
Ajay Kant & Others Vs Alka Sharma
Citations: 2007 (4) RCR (Crl) 930 (MP HC)
Court Held that: Obligatory on the magistrate to take into consideration DIR if any at the time of passing any order on application. Note obligatory to call for DIR before issuing notice to respondent or passing any order on application.
Note: Magistrate, before passing any order on petition, ex-parte or final, should take into consideration DIR if any recorded by PO. But where no report recorded by PO, then he can pass orders even without waiting for the report. Discretion to be excursed judicially.
Shalu Ojha Vs Prashant Ojha
Citations: 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 815 (SC)
Court Held that: Where maintenance is granted by magistrate u/s 20 of DV Act, on appeal to the court of session, the session court ought not stay the execution of maintenance order. Power to grant interim orders are not always inherent in every court.
Kanchan Vs. Vikramjeet Setiya
Citations: Crl. Misc. No.123/2010 (RAJ)
Court Held that: Monetary relief is defined in Section 2 (k) of the Act. For execution of monetary order, passed u/s 12 petitioner has to apply u/s 20 of the Act. However, this provision is limited to person who may have accrued credit or is a salaried person. In case of self employed person, this provision will be of no help to petitioner. Section 125 has to be resorted to non compliance of order of monetary relief does not give rise to consequence of Section 31 of the Act. Direction: – all order of monetary relief under DV Act shall be executed in the manner provided u/s 125 Cr.P.C. but with modification that no formal application shall be required.
Kanaka Raj Vs St. of Kerala and anr.
Citations: 2010 Crl.L.J. (NOC) 447 (KERELA)
Court Held that: only if the order passed by the Magistrate is a protection order or an interim protection order, the Magistrate can direct registration of case and investigate the same under Section 31 of the DV Act and even if award is passed by Lok Adalat unless made in terms of Section 18 of the DV Act, it cannot be a protection order or interim
protection order and breach of it will not attract the offence u/s 31 of the DV Act
Rajesh Bharti Vs Bimla Devi
Citations: 2015 (4) LAR 568 (P&H)
Court Held that: There is no rule of law that limitation of one year is applicable in cases under DV Act.
Shalini Vs Kishore
Citations: 2015 (3) RCR (Crl) 652 (SC)
Where wife living separately from 15 years from the husband, with her uncle, still entitle to maintenance from her husband under Section 20 of DV Act.
Suresh Vs Jaibir
Citations: 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 613 (P&H)
Magistrate is empowered to grant interim maintenance once he is empowered u/s 20 to grant monetary reliefs.
Richa Arya Vs St of NCT Delhi
Citations: 2016 (2) RCR (Crl) 406 (DEL)
Interim maintenance to the wife cannot be refused on the ground that wife was being paid maintenance pendentelite u/s 24 HMA. Held – relief u/s 12 of the DV Act is in addition to any other relief which could be granted by court in any forum.
Kusuam Lata Vs State
Citations: 2012(1) RCR (crl) 924 (DEL)
A mother who is being maltreated and harassed by her son would be an “aggrieved person”. If the said harassment is caused through the female relative of the son i.e. his wife, the said female relative will fall within the ambit of the “respondent”. This phenomenon of the daughters-in-law harassing their mothers-in-law especially who are dependent is not uncommon in the Indian society.
Hiral P. Harsora Vs Kusum Narottam Dass Harsora
Citations: 2016 (4) RCR (Civil) 750 (SC)
Whether aggrieved mother in law can file complaint against daughter in law
Held – Complaint under DV Act can be filed against female whether adult or non adult.
The words ‘adult male’ u/s 2(q) struck out as these words discriminate between person similarly situated and are contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the 2005 Act
Once the words ‘adult male’ are struck down the proviso to section 2(f) has not independent existence.
Therefore, an aggrieved mother in law can file complaint against daughter in law where she is a victim of domestic violence.
Sou Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and ors.
Citations: 2011 (1) KLT 609 (SC)
Respondent – To include females
Although Section 2(q) defines ‘Respondent” to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a DR with AP, the proviso widens the scope of said definition by including relative of husband or male partner within scope of complaint, which may be field b y an aggrieved wife or female living in relationship in nature of marriage – If Legislature intended to exclude females from ambit of complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of it being provided in proviso that a complaint could also be filed against relative of husband or male partner – No restrictive meaning had been given to expression “relative”, nor had the said expression been specifically defined in the DV Act, to make it specific to males only – Therefore, legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of husband or male partner from ambit of complaint that could be made under provisions of the DV Act.
Smt. Menakuru Renuka Vs Smt. Menakuru Mohan Reddy
Citations: 2009 (3) Crimes 473 (AP HC)
Respondent – To include females
It has to be treated that the proviso to section 2 (q) intends to include only male persons other than those in DR also. There appears to be unintentional omission to specifically exclude women in the proviso or it may be because mains section makes it clear that only male persons can be respondent, it is not again specified in the proviso. The intention of the Act is to exclude women altogether from the definition of respondent.
Krishna Bhatacharjee Vs Sarthi Chaudhary and others
Citations: 2016 (1) RCR (Crl) 152 (SC)
Wife does not cease to be ‘aggrieved person’ because of decree of judicial separation. Once decree of divorced status of parties becomes different but that is not so when there is a decree of judicial separation. There is a distinction between decree for divorce and decree of judicial separation. In the formal there is severance of status and parties do not remain as husband and wife. Whereas in the later, the relationship between husband and wife continues and has not snapped.
Parkash Nagardas Dubal Shaha Vs Sou. Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and ors.
Citations: Crl. Appeal No 320 of 2016 (SC)
Held – an unsuccessful divorce proceeding filed by the wife does not adversely affect her right to claim reliefs under the DV Act. Though wife filed divorce, which was rejected, she continues to be the legally wedded wife and her application under DV Act remains maintainable.
Inderjit Singh Garewal Vs St. of Punjab
Citations: 2011 (4) RCR (Crl) (SC)
Landmark Judgment. Where a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage by way of mutual consent has been passed by a competent court, complaint under DV Act is not maintainable till decree of divorce subsists. Domestic relationship ceases on divorce.
Harbans Lal Malik Vs Payal Malik
Citations: 2010 (7) RCR (Crl) 1397 (SC)
Domestic relationship between aggrieved person and respondent must be present and alive at the time of filing complaint. So as to entitle wife for reliefs.
JUVERIA ABDUL MAJID PATNI Vs. ATIF IQBAL MANSOORI
Citations: 2014 (4) RCR (Civil) 570 (SC)
Held – an act of domestic violence once committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the respondent from the offence committed or to deny benefit to which the AP is entitled under the DV Act including monitory relief u/s 20, Child Custody u/s 21, Compensation u/s 22 and Interim Relief u/s 23 of the Act.
Hema Rawal Vs Prashant Sharma
Citations: 2015 (2) RCR (Crl) 195 (P&H)
Where wife has challenged ex-parte decree of divorce, means that divorce decree has not become final. Until and unless decree of divorce becomes final, wife falls under the scope of ‘aggrieved person’ as matrimonial relationship is alive and sustaining. Such wife is entitled to reliefs under DV Act.
Abhishek Sharma Vs Shweta Sharma
Citations: Crl. Misc. No.M-29910 of 2014, (P&H)
Rights of Divorced Wife
DR between AP and respondent must be present and alive at the time when complaint under DV Act is filed. If this relationship is not alive on the date when complaint is made, DR cannot be said to be there.
S.R. Batra Vs Taruna Batra
Citations: 2007 (1) RCR (Crl) 403 (SC)
Husband and wife living in a house owned by mother of the husband. Held – house owned by mother does not come within the definition of shared household u/s 2 (s) of the Act. Shared household would mean only the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which husband is a member.
Varinder Kaur Vs Jatinder Kumar and another
Citations: 2016 (4) RCR (Crl) 861 (P&H)
House owned by mother in law – whether shared household of daughter in law
Held – A daughter in law has not right to live in the self acquired house of mother in law or father in law. The same is not a shared household.
Avtar Singh Vs Jaswinder kaur
Citations: 2015 (3) RCR (Crl) 461 (P&H)
Shared household means the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or the house which belongs to the joint family of which husband is a member.
Suman Vs Tulsi Ram
Citations: 2015 (1) RCR (Civil) 304 (P&H)
House owned by father-in-law – whether shared household of daughter in law
Held – House exclusively belong to the father in law. Husband of the aggrieved person lived separately.
AP has no right to live in the house of her father in law as exclusive property of the father in law cannot be termed as shared household.
Lokesh Kiran Kumar Shah Vs Shradha Lokesh Shah and another
Citations: 2013 (1) Crimes 208 (BOM)
House which neither belongs to husband nor belongs to the joint family of which husband is a member cannot be covered by term ‘shared household’. House owned by husband’s father being his self acquired property is not shared household. Petitioner wife entitle to alternate accommodation.
GA Ferris Vs Svetlana Alexandrovna
Citations: 2015 (1) DMC 408 (KAR)
Property in question which is exclusively in the name of mother in law is her absolute property. Such house cannot be claimed by petitioner wife as shared household. Wife is only entitle to claim right to residence in shared household and shared household would mean only the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or house which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member.
Anukriti Dubey Vs Partha Kansabanik and anr.
Citations: 2016 (3) RCR (Crl) 284 (DEL)
Husband and wife living in a rented house. Husband left the house after the expiry of tenancy. Held – house does not remained shared household. Wife not entitled to live in the house and landlord entitled to evict her. Further held – DR would not exists between persons who are not related by consanguinity marriage or through relationship in nature of marriage adoption or are not family members living together as joint family. A deserted wife in occupation tenanted premises cannot be placed in a position which is different from her husband if he had contested suit for eviction.
Vijay Verma Vs St (NCT Delhi)
Citations: 2010 (3) LRC 291 (DEL)
Casual visit of a daughter in law to the house of father in law will not amount to living or live together in a shared household for the purpose of DR. only the violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can constitute DV. Further held – where a male or a female attains self sufficiency after education or otherwise and takes up a job and lives in some
other city or country, enjoys life there, settles home there, he cannot be said to have DR with the persons whom he left behind.
A.R.Hashir Vs Sheema and others
Citations: 2015 (3) RCR (Crl) 683 (KERELA)
A residence belonging to the mother in law or father in law would not be a shared household.
Amit Aggarwal Vs Sanjay Aggarwal
Citations: Crl. Misc. No.M-36736 of 2014
(P&H) Qus: Whether the wife can file a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act when the relationship has come to an end with a decree of divorce.
Held – Such a complaint under DV Act, after decree of divorce dissolved the marriage of the party, is an abuse of the process of law and does not maintainable. Further held – a divorced wife cannot held to be an ‘aggrieved person’ as provided in Section 2(a) of the Act. There is no domestic relationship between a divorced husband and wife so as to maintain a petition under DV Act. Domestic relationship between aggrieved person and respondent must be present and alive at the time when complaint under DV Act is filed. Definition of ‘wife’ as available in Section 125 Crpc which includes divorced wife cannot be merged into domestic violence act. The definition pre supposes that women is living with the person who committed domestic violence and domestic relationship is not dead, buried or severed. This does not speak of past violence which a women suffered before grant of divorce.
Ambreen Akhoon Versus Mr Aditya Aurn Paudwal And Anr
Citations: NO.5648 OF 2015, DOD 4 August, 2015 (BOM)
WRIT PETITION Whether any relief can be sought against the It is a settled position of law that the jurisdiction to seek relative of the respondent – husband in the proceedings filed under section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the Family Court? remedies under the D.V. Act is before the Judicial Magistrate First Class or the Metropolitan Magistrate
Section 26 of the D.V. Act enables a party to seek relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21and 22 of the D.V. Act in any legal proceeding before the civil Court or Family Court or criminal Court affecting the aggrieved person Section 7 of the Family Courts Act limits the jurisdiction of the Family Court Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall also have and exercise- The jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the First Class under Chapter IX (relating to order for maintenance of wife, children and parents) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974); and Such other jurisdiction as may be conferred on it by any other enactment. Thus, under clause (b) of subsection (2), if there is a specific provision under any other statute that such matters can also be entertained and tried by the Family Court, then, the jurisdiction of the Family Court can be extended to that effect. Under section 26 of the D.V. Act, the jurisdiction to
entertain and try matters under the sections specified therein is conferred to the Family Court, then, it is to be conferred in entirety in respect of the reliefs which are available and can be sought under the sections specified in the said section.
Venugopalan v. Jayasree V. Nair
Citations: FAO.No. 50 of 2012, DOD: 17.07.2012
(KERELA HC) Jurisdiction of family court extends to matters under DV Act by virtue of sec 26
Held that the DV Act guarantees larger rights in favour of the woman by giving her the option to approach either the Family Court or the Magistrate at her convenience. It further went on to hold that the Family Courts have the power under Section 26 to pass interim protection orders as well as interim residence orders.
Sudhannaya Versus Umashankar Valsan
Citations: TrP(Crl) No. 80 of 2007, DOD: 25 October, 2007 (KERELA HC)
Jurisdiction of family court extends to matters under DV Act by virtue of sec 26 Held that the DV Act guarantees larger rights in favour of the woman by giving her the option to approach either the Family Court or the Magistrate at her convenience. It further went on to hold that the Family Courts have the power under Section 26 to pass interim protection orders as well as interim residence orders.
Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Versus Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr.
2016 (3) RCR (Crl) 315 (SC)
In a complaint DV Act, court has power to allow amendment to complaint if amendment becomes necessary in view of subsequent events to avoid multiplicity of litigation. Further held there is no complete bar of amendment in the complaints in crl. Courts which are governed by CRPC though undoubtedly such power to allow amendment has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and under limited circumstances. Although proceeding under DV Act are governed by CRPC, yet it cannot be disputed that these proceedings are predominantly of civil nature.
Indra Sarma Vs VKV Sarma
2014 (1) RCR (Crl) 179 (SC)
Relationship in nature of Marriage
Distinction drawn between ‘live in relationship’ and ‘relationship in nature of marriage’. Promulgated some factors to look into for testing under what circumstances a live-in relationship will fall within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The guidelines, of course, are not exhaustive, but will definitely give some insight to such relationship. Women in live in relationship not covered under the definition and thus not entitle to any reliefs under the Act.
D.Velusamy Vs D.Patchaiammal
2010 (4) RCR (Crl) 746 (SC)
Relationship in nature of Marriage
Relationship in the nature of marriage defined and distinguished from live in relationship. Further held only women in relationship in nature of marriage entitled to reliefs under DV Act.
Poonam Vs Vijay Kumar Jindal
2015 (4) RCR (Crl) 300 (P&H)
Relationship in nature of Marriage
Same View taken as in Indra Sarma and Velusamy’s Case.
Dimple Jatin Khanna @ Dimple Vs Anita Advani And Anr
2016 (1) RCR (Crl) 530 (BOM)
Relationship in nature of Marriage
Where petitioner enters into relationship with a man who is already married which fact was in the knowledge of petitioner, cannot be held that the relationship was in the nature of marriage. Such petitioner not entitled to reliefs under DV Act.
Deepak @ Gajanan Vs St. of Maharashtra
2015 (3) RCR (Crl) (BOM)
Relationship in nature of Marriage
A women marrying a person already married which was in her
knowledge, such women not entitled to any relief under DV Act although two children were born to her. The said relationship cannot be termed as relationship in the nature of marriage. Children of such a marriage may be entitled relief u/s 25 CrP.C.