Supreme Court:DV Act |When Can Order Passed Under S.12 Be Modified/Altered Due To Change In Circumstances? Supreme Court ExplainsCase Details : S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari CCitation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 745The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, has explained when Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be invoked to seek the alteration, modification...
Supreme Court:
Case Details : S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 745
The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, has explained when Section 25(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be invoked to seek the alteration, modification or revocation of an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act.
The bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh observed that the scope of Section 25(2) of the Act is broad enough to deal with all nature of orders passed under the Act, which may include orders of maintenance, residence, protection, etc.
Case Details : S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 745
The Supreme Court has observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation.
"The Act is a piece of Civil Code which is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation and/or social background for a more effective protection of her rights guaranteed under the Constitution and in order to protect women victims of domestic violence occurring in a domestic relationship," observed a bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh.
Allahabad High Court:
Case Title: Saleem Ahmad vs. State Of Up And 2 Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 361 [MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 339 of 2024]
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 361
The Allahabad High Court has held that proceedings under Chapter IV of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are civil in nature and amendments to applications made to the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Act are allowed to be made.
“The proceedings before the Magistrate relating to reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the D.V. Act, having been held essentially to be of a civil nature, the power to amend the complain/application would have to be read in relevant statutory provisions, as a necessary concomitant,” held Justice Dr.Yogendra Kumar Srivastava.
Case title - Suman Mishra vs. The State Of U.P And Ors 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 481
Case title - 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 481
The Allahabad High Court has said that a petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging the proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act) is not maintainable.
A bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla held thus, heavily relying upon the rulings of the Supreme Court (in Kamatchi vs Laxmi Narayanan, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 370) and the Madras High Court (in Arul Daniel vs Suganya and other connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 467).
Case Title: X v. Y
Case citation : 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 643
Referring to the Supreme Court's decision on multiple deductions towards maintenance amount, the Allahabad High Court has said that in matrimonial disputes if there are multiplicity of maintenance proceedings under different legislations, the plea claiming the highest maintenance must be decided first by the concerned court.
The observation came in an army personnel's plea who claimed that though money was being directly deducted towards maintenance from his salary under an army order, however the wife had gone on to again seek maintenance under two separate proceedings–one under the Hindu Marriage Act and the other under the Domestic Violence Act. As this was allowed by the family court through two different orders, the man approached the high court.
Bombay High Court:
Case Title: Zeba Mohasin Pathan @ Zeba Easak Pathan v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 7
The Bombay High Court held that a complaint filed by a mother-in-law (MIL) against her daughter-in-law (DIL) under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is maintainable. However, it quashed the complaint against the daughter-in-law's father and brother.
“While the object and purpose of the DV Act is to protect a woman from domestic violence, it does not confer a right on a mother-in-law to prosecute the father and brother of her daughter-in-law under the DV Act,” the judge observed.
Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale partly allowed a petition filed by the DIL, her father and brother challenging a DV complaint filed by the woman's MIL before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koregaon, Satara.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 87
The Bombay High Court quashed a domestic violence case against a woman's married sister-in-law observing that the sister-in-law visiting frequently to the household of the complainant without any permanency is not sufficient to constitute residence in shared household.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh allowed a writ petition filed by the sister-in-law challenging the order of the Sessions Court which overturned the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate to dismiss the domestic violence complaint against her.
Case Title: ABC v. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 109
The Bombay High Court ordered the release of a man sentenced to simple imprisonment of 47 months for of default in payment of interim maintenance awarded to his wife and daughter in a domestic violence case.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh observed that under section 125(3) CrPC, the power of the Magistrate to impose punishment of imprisonment for default is restricted to 12 months, as the proviso provides a limitation period of 12 months from the due date of payment.
Case Title: Sanjivani Jayesh Seernani v. Kavita Shyam Seernani & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 153
The Bombay High Court stayed an order directing a daughter-in-law to vacate her matrimonial home under the Senior Citizens Act for six months until a Magistrate decides her interim application for residence under the Domestic Violence Act.
Justice Sandeep Marne held that when there's a conflict between the rights of senior citizens under the Senior Citizens Act and those of women under the Domestic Violence Act, a balanced approach is required and the rights of senior citizens cannot be determined in isolation.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 165
The Bombay High Court held that the appellate court cannot direct parties to file affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities in proceedings challenging final judgment of the trial court in a domestic violence case.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh clarified that such affidavits are only required at the interim stage for the purpose of deciding interim maintenance.
Case Title: ABC v. XYZ
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 169
The Bombay High Court upheld a trial court's order directing a man to pay Rs. 3 crores compensation to his ex-wife for various acts of domestic violence including calling her “Second Hand” as her engagement with another person was called off.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh rejected the man's revision application against the orders observing – “Although the abuse will necessarily result in mental torture and emotional distress for the aggrieved person, the gravity will differ from person to person. In the present case admittedly both the parties are well educated and highly placed in their workplace and in social life. That being the social standing, the acts of domestic violence would be greater felt by the Respondent No 1 as it would affect her self worth”
Case Title: A vs P
Citation: 2024 LivwLaw (Bom) 349
The Bombay High Court held that it is the choice of a wife to file Domestic Violence proceedings seeking maintenance and reliefs either before a Magistrate Court or before a Family Court where the husband has already instituted divorce proceedings. Single-judge Justice Arun Pednekar further held that in such a scenario, the High Court should not entertain applications filed by the husband to transfer the proceedings before the Magistrate to the Family Court as it cannot deprive a wife of her right to choose an appropriate forum to seek maintenance.
Delhi High Court:
Title: A v. B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 38
The Delhi High Court has observed that the wife cannot be denied the benefit of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, merely on the basis of allegations of illicit relationship which are yet to be proved during the course of trial.
Title: A v. B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 75
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the findings of cruelty against a wife in the divorce proceedings by itself cannot be a basis to deny her maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 103
The Delhi High Court has observed that a litigant cannot be allowed to take for granted the proceedings initiated by a victim of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Title: GULSHAN KUMAR & ANR. v. NIDHI KASHYAP
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 437
The Delhi High Court has observed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a measure of social justice applicable to each woman, irrespective of religious affiliation or social background.
Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta said that the statute was enacted to safeguard the rights of the victims of 'domestic violence' in 'domestic relationship'.
Case title: X and Ors. v The State and Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1001
Dismissing a plea moved by a husband and his kin against an order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife under the Domestic Violence Act, the Delhi High Court agreed with the trial court's observation that unlike Section 125 CrPC, maintenance under the DV Act is not linked to the inability of the wife to maintain herself.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1052
The Delhi High Court has observed that a husband living with another lady and having a child with her makes the wife victim of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act.
Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while rejecting a husband's plea against grant of monthly maintenance of Rs. 30,000 to his wife.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 1054
The Delhi High Court has observed that an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act can only be filed before the jurisdictional magistrate.
Section 12 states that an “aggrieved person” or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Domestic Violence Act.
Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh High Court:
Criminal Court Can Review Its Own Order At Notice Stage Under Domestic Violence Act: J&K High Court
Case Title: MUDASIR AHMAD DAR Vs. MST.MASHOOKA AND ANOTHER
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 135
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh clarified that the bar on a criminal court to review its own order does not apply at the stage when a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Case Title: ABDUL ROUF SHAH Vs ATIQA HASSAN & OTHERS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 169
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court affirmed that there is no specific bar to filing an appeal before the sessions court against an interim order passed under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act.
Highlighting the absence of any such bar on the interim orders a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,“if the Legislature intended to keep the interim orders out of the purview of Section 29 of the DV Act, the same could have been specifically provided. In the absence of any specific bar, an interim order, which is included in the definition of 'order' cannot be kept outside the purview of Section 29 of the Act”.
Case Title: KAMRAN KHAN AND & ORS. Vs BILKEES KHANAM
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 204
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar while hearing a petition challenging the issuance of such warrants, observed that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) are inherently civil in nature and not criminal.
Case Title: Mst Shameema Begum Vs Javid Iqbal Khan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 248
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court clarified that a Magistrate, while considering an interim residence order under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), is not required to conduct a full trial but only needs to be satisfied with the application filed by the aggrieved person.
Case Title: Sardul Singh son of Joga Singh VS Davinder Kour wife of Gurinder Singh
Citation 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 341
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) can be invoked even in cases involving past domestic relationships where the parties have lived together in a shared household at any point in time.
Justice Sanjay Dhar clarified that the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act is not confined to ongoing cohabitation but extends to relationships where shared residence existed previously.
Karnataka High Court:
Case Title: A Ramesh Babu & Others AND Dharani S
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 292
The Karnataka High Court has held that a petition calling in question the entire proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would be maintainable before the High Court, not the Sessions Court.
However, if any particular order is passed on any application filed under Sections 18, 19, 20 or 22 of the Act, those specific orders are to be agitated before the Court of Sessions invoking Section 29 of the Act.
Case Title: ABC AND XYZ & Others
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
The Karnataka High Court has said that an application made by a woman under provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be dismissed by the trial court without issuing notice to the respondents or carrying out an enquiry.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a woman and set aside the order dated 18-03-2024, passed by the trial which had on going through the application dismissed it by observing that the case does not project any domestic violence.
Orissa High Court:
Case Title: Sk. Sadab Kadir & Ors. v. Saher Saniya
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 5
The Orissa High Court held that 'Domestic Incident Report' (DIR) from the 'Protection Officer' is not mandatory and hence, not a pre-requisite to grant relief to an aggrieved woman under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act'). Interpreting the above provision of the Act, the Single Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed:“Section 12(1) requires the Magistrate to take into consideration the Domestic Incident report. However the Domestic Incident Report is not mandatory for passing orders and/ or shall be taken into consideration only in cases where it has been filed.”
Telangana High Court:
Case Title: Smt. N. Pravallika vs M. Abhishek Goud
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Tel) 97
The Telangana High Court recently upheld an order by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge (appellate court) in a domestic violence case, highlighting the mandatory requirement for both parties to disclose their assets and liabilities in maintenance proceedings.
“The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Medchal observed that though the assets and liabilities statement of respondent No.1 was on record by the date of passing the order, in spite of the same, it was not considered by the trial court making the order erroneous, since the statement would help the Court in deciding the actual amount of relief that was entitled and claimed,” the Bench observed.
![Last Date to Get 30% Discount On LiveLaw Academys Judicial Service Examination Preparation Courses [Apply Now!]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2025/04/12/500x300_595581-lla-early-bird-750-x-450.webp "Last Date to Get 30% Discount On LiveLaw Academys Judicial Service Examination Preparation Courses [Apply Now!]")
