Supreme Court Judgments-Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005

Domestic Violence Act: Supreme Court Asks Union To Hold Meeting With
States/UTs To Address Inadequacy Of Protection Officers

Case Title: We The Women of India v. UoI And Ors. WP(C) No. 1156/2021

Coram: Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta

The Supreme Court directed the Secretary of the Union Ministry of Women and Child
Development to convene a meeting with the Principal Secretaries of all States and
Union Territories to, inter alia, look into the issue of inadequacy of Protection Officers
under the DV Act.

Further, the Court also directed the Ministry to place on record the current status of
implementation of Mission Shakti (integrated women empowerment programme),
the umbrella scheme for safety, security and empowerment of women schemes.
(Page No. 4-7)

Courts Should Not Impose Onerous Conditions On Complainants Under Domestic

Violence Act: Supreme Court

Coram: Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal

Case Title: Bhawna Versus Bhay Ram And Others., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 148

The Supreme Court set aside a condition imposed by the Delhi High Court, which
had allowed a victim of domestic violence to lead evidence during trial subject to
payment of Rs.10,000 per witness.

The Court held it's not open for Courts to place such “onerous conditions.” Apart
from being impermissible in law, the condition is more like a penalty for the appellant
not proceeding with the trial, the Court explained.

Pertinently, in the trial, the right of the appellant to lead evidence was closed, and
the complaint was rejected. Therefore, the appellant had filed an appeal. The
Appellate Court allowed the appeal, directing the trial court to reopen the case and
allow the appellant to lead evidence subject to her paying a cost of Rs.20,000/- per
witness. When the appellant moved the High Court against the said order, the High
Court reduced the cost to Rs.10,000/- per witness.

High Courts Judgments-Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005

Complainant Need Not Cite Detailed Particulars Of Every Single Act Of Domestic
Violence In Complaint: Orissa HC Refuses To Quash Case Against In-Laws

Case Title: Girish Prasad Mishra & Anr. v. Smt. Lopamudra Kar., 2023 LiveLaw (Ori)
6

Coram: Justice Sashikanta Mishra

The Orissa High Court clarified that a complainant need not mention the detailed
particulars of every single act of domestic violence in the complaint itself. Thus, even
a prima facie disclosure of acts of violence would be sufficient to maintain a
complaint under the DV Act. (Para 8)

Protection Under Domestic Violence Act Not Available To Husband Or Male Member
Of Family: Delhi High Court Stays Case Filed By Husband Against Wife

Case Title: NT v. VT., 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 107

Coram: Justice Jasmeet Singh

The Delhi High Court, expressing a prima facie view, opined that the protection
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is not available
to a husband or male member of the family in view of sections 2(a) of the statute.

Section 2(a) defines an “aggrieved person” as any woman who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the 'respondent' and alleges to have been subjected to
any act of domestic violence. (Page No. 2)

Proceedings Under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act Not Bar To Initiating Criminal
Action, Lodging FIR U/S 498A IPC: JKL High Court

Case title: Danish Chauhan Vs DGP J&K., 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 36

Coram: Justice Sanjay Dhar

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that merely because a wife
has initiated proceedings against her husband under the DV Act, no bar can be
construed against lodging a first information report (FIR) for cruelty under Section
498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code.

The scope of proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act and the scope of criminal
proceedings initiated pursuant to the lodging of FIR are entirely different from each
other., the Court explained. (Para 7)

Domestic Violence Victims Must Be Addressed With Immediacy: Karnataka High

Court Issues Directions For Timely Disposal By Magistrate Courts

Case Title: Kavitha M And Raghu & Others., 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 116

Coram: Justice M Nagaprasanna

The Karnataka High Court had issued directions to be followed by magistrate courts
for disposal of applications being made by an aggrieved person under the DV Act
within 60 days from the date of its filing. (Para 19)

No Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act For "Refusal Or Neglect" To Maintain

Wife: Bombay High Court

Coram: Justice SG Mehare

Case Title - Sunil and Ors. v. Jayashri., 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 163

The Bombay High Court held that when no domestic violence is found in a domestic
violence case, maintenance cannot be awarded to wife on the ground that husband
refused and neglected to maintain her.

The Court observed that the concept of “refusal and neglect to maintain wife” given
in section 125 CrPC does not exist in the DV Act. It explained that the tests to prove
the domestic violence and refusal and neglect to maintain are different. There were
no provisions in the DV Act to test the refusal and neglect to maintain. (Para 9)

Transgender Person Who Underwent Surgery To Change Gender To Female Can

File Complaint Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court

Case Title – Vithal Manik Khatri v. Sagar Sanjay Kamble @ Sakshi Vithal Khatri and
Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 175
Coram: Justice Amit Borkar

The Bombay High Court opined that the Transgender who has performed surgery to
change gender to a female, needs to be termed as an aggrieved person within the
meaning of Section 2(a) of the DV Act.

The word 'woman' in section 2(a) is no more limited to the binary of women and men
and includes the transgender person also who has changed her sex in tune with her
gender characteristics., the Court said. (Para 11)

Protection Order Under DV Act: Section 468 CrPC Applicable Only At Cognizance
Stage U/S 32 Of DV Act, Not Prior To It: Patna High Court

Case Title: Amit Kumar and Ors vs. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Pat)
29

Coram: Justice Dr. Anshuman

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 32- The Patna
High Court held that Section 468 of Cr.P.C. (bar to taking cognizance after lapse of
the period of limitation) has applicability in the matter of Domestic Violence only at
the stage of applicability of Section 32 (cognizance and proof for breach of protection
order) of the DV Act where the question of taking cognizance is involved. Section
468 of CrPC does not apply in the DV Act prior to Section 32 of the Act., the Court
said. (Page 4)

Indian Court Can Entertain Complaint Against Domestic Violence Committed

Abroad: Bombay High Court

Case Title- S v. H., 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 207

Coram: Justice GA Sanap

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 27- The
Bombay High Court held that judicial magistrate in India can take cognizance of
domestic violence committed in foreign soil under the DV Act. It opined that though
the Domestic Violence Act extend to the whole of India as provided under Section 1
of the DV Act, the domestic violence caused on the foreign soil could also be taken
cognizance by invoking Section 27 (1) (a) and (b). (Para 9)

DomesticViolence Act | Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance Even After Divorce:
Bombay High Court
Case Title – ABC v. XYZ

Coram: Justice GA Sanap

The Bombay High Court recently held that a Muslim woman cannot be denied
maintenance in the proceeding initiated under Section 12 of the D.V. Act even after
divorce. Reliance was placed upon Shabana Bano v. Imran Khan. Therein, the
Supreme Court had held that even if a Muslim woman has been divorced, she would
be entitled to claim maintenance from her divorced husband as long as she does
not re-marry. (Para 11)

Court Can Allow Evidence On Affidavit In DV Act Case: Gujarat High Court

Case Title: Samirkumar Chandubhai Joshi v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2023 Livelaw
(Guj) 88

Coram: Justice Samir J. Dave

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 28- The
Gujarat High Court opined that it can allow evidence on affidavit in its discretion and
while considering the aims and objects of the D.V. Act including the scope of Section
28(2). Further, the court can deviate from procedure mentioned under Sub Section
(1) of Section 28 read with Rule 6(5) and devise its own procedure which would
include permitting evidence by way of an affidavit. (Para 10)

Karnataka HC Upholds Reduction Of Maintenance To 'Capable' Wife; Says She

Can't Sit Idle, Can Only Seek 'Supportive Maintenance' From Husband

Case Title: XYZ & ANR And Gurumanjunatha A S & Others., 2023 LiveLaw (Kar)
252

Coram: Justice Rajendra Badamikar

The Karnataka High Court rejected a petition filed by a woman challenging the order
of the Appellate court reducing the maintenance and compensation amount granted
to her by the Magistrate court on filing of an application under section 12 of
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The Court observed that the petitioner-wife was working prior to her marriage and
there is no explanation as to why she is incapable of working now. (Para 8)
Police Can Register FIR For Non-Payment Of Maintenance As It Amounts To
Economic Abuse, Breach Of Protection Order Under DV Act: Madras High Court

Case Title: Amalraj v State and Another., 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 191

Coram: Justice KK Ramakrishnan

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 18 and

31: The Madras High Court has ruled that non-payment of maintenance amount is
a breach of protection order under Section 18 of the Act and registration of an FIR
on that ground is lawful.

It further observed that Section 31 of the DV Act was enacted to ensure social justice
and to regulate the violator of a protection order. The court called the provision a life-
saving medicine by treating failure of remittance of maintenance as an offence and
crime. (Para 21)

Physically Handicapped Person Not Incapable Of Giving Threats: Bombay High

Court Refuses To Quash Domestic Violence Case

Coram: Justice RM Joshi

The Bombay High Court, while refusing to quash a domestic violence case against
a disabled woman accused of abusing and threatening her daughter-in-law,
observed that a physically disabled person is not incapable of giving threats. (Para
7)

Family Court Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Plea Seeking Reliefs U/S 18-22 Domestic
Violence Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: George Varghese v. Treesa Sebastian & Ors. and connected matter.,
2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 623

Coram: Justice Amit Rawal

The Kerala High Court held that the Family Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a
petition seeking reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005.

What is discerned from the provisions of Section 12 is that an aggrieved person is

free to elect any of the reliefs. The legislature in the wisdom has framed the Act by
taking into consideration the doctrine of election., the Court opined. (Para 16)
Rejection Of Wife's Maintenance Claim U/S 125 CrPC Doesn't Bar Her From
Seeking Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act: MP High Court

Case Title: Bhupendra Singh Rajawat & Ors. v. Ranjeeta Rajawat., Criminal
Revision No. 527 of 2022

Coram: Justice Prem Narayan Singh

The Madhya Pradesh High Court reiterated that if, in proceeding under Section 125
of Cr.P.C., the application of wife seeking maintenance is rejected by the Family
Court, such wife would not be precluded from claiming maintenance or other
monetary remedy under the 12 provisions of the D.V. Act. (Para 18 and 19)

Person Can't Be Summoned For Non-Compliance Of Maintenance Order Under

Section 31 Of Domestic Violence Act: Delhi High Court

Case Title: Anish Pramod Patel V. Kiran Jyot Maini., 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1220

Coram: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 31: The Delhi
High Court opined that a person cannot be summoned under Section 31 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, for non-compliance with an
order for payment of maintenance.

The Court observed that the focus of the enactment is on providing immediate and
effective relief to victims of domestic violence by way of maintenance or interim
maintenance orders and that the idea is to immediately initiate criminal proceedings
against the aggressor for non-payment of maintenance and to send such person to
prison. (Para 48 and 49)

Tags

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005