Domestic Violence Act: All India Annual Digest 2024

Supreme Court:

DV Act |When Can Order Passed Under S.12 Be Modified/Altered Due To Change In Circumstances? Supreme Court Explains

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.

Domestic Violence Act Applicable To Every Woman In India Irrespective Of Her Religious Affiliation & Social Background : Supreme Court

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:

Remedies Sought Under Domestic Violence Act Of Civil Nature, Amendment To Application U/S 12 Are Allowed: 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.

Petition U/S 482 CrPC Not Maintainable For Challenging Proceedings U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act: Allahabad High Court

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).

In Multiple Matrimonial Proceedings, Plea Claiming Higher/ Highest Maintenance Must Be Decided First: Allahabad High Court

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:

Domestic Violence Complaint Maintainable Against Daughter-In-Law But Not Maintainable Against Her Father, Brother: 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.

Married Sister-In-Law Who Frequently Visits House Not In Domestic Relationship With Complainant: Bombay High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case

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.

S.125(3) CrPC | Magistrate Can't Order Imprisonment For More Than 12 Months' Default In Maintenance In A Single Application: Bombay High Court

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.

“Can't Render Wife Homeless For Senior Citizen In-Laws' Peace”: Bombay HC Stays Eviction Till Interim Decision On Shared Household Under DV Act

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.

Domestic Violence | Court Can't Direct Parties To File Affidavit Of Assets & Liabilities In Appeal Against Final Trial Court Judgment: Bombay HC

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.

[Domestic Violence Act] Bombay High Court Upholds ₹3 Crores Compensation For Woman Whose Husband Called Her “Second-Hand”

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”

High Court Cannot Deprive Wife Of Her Right To Choose Appropriate Forum To Seek Maintenance: Bombay High Court

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:

DV Act | Unproven Allegations Of Illicit Relationship No Ground To Deny Interim Maintenance To Wife: 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.

Findings Of Cruelty Against Wife In Divorce Case No Basis To Deny Her Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court

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.

Litigant Can't Be Allowed To Take Proceedings Initiated By Victim Under Domestic Violence Act For Granted: Delhi High Court

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.

Domestic Violence Act Applicable To Every Woman Irrespective Of Religious Affiliation: Delhi High Court

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'.

Unlike S.125 CrPC, Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act Not Connected With Wife's Inability To Maintain Herself: Delhi High Court

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.

Wife Compelled To Leave Matrimonial House Due To Husband's Extra Marital Affair Makes Her Victim Of Domestic Violence: Delhi High Court

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.

Application U/S 12 Of Domestic Violence Act Can Only Be Filed Before Jurisdictional Magistrate: Delhi High Court

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.

[Domestic Violence Act] No Specific Bar On Filing Appeal Before Sessions Court To Challenge Interim Orders: J&K High Court Clarifies

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”.

[DV Act] Arrest Warrants Unjustified In Domestic Violence Cases Since Proceedings Are Civil In Nature: J&K High Court

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.

DV Act | No Need For Trial To Grant Interim Residence Order, It Is An Urgent Relief To Protect Woman From Taking Shelter On Road: J&K High Court

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.

Domestic Violence Act Can Be Invoked For Past Domestic Relationships As Well: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

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:

Sessions Court Not Empowered To Quash Entire Proceedings U/S 12 Domestic Violence Act, Party Must Approach High Court: Karnataka HC

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.

Application By Woman Under Domestic Violence Act Can't Be Dismissed By Trial Court Without Issuing Notice, Carrying Out Inquiry: Karnataka HC

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:

S.12 DV Act | 'Domestic Incident Report' By Protection Officer Not Mandatory To Grant Interim Maintenance: 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:

Telangana High Court Reiterates Mandatory Disclosure Of Assets & Liabilities By Both Sides In Maintenance Cases, Calls For Strict Adherence To SC Guidelines

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.