Recent Case Laws on the Domestic Violence Act [PART ONE]

---

Introduction to Domestic Violence and Legal Framework in India

Domestic violence is a serious concern in India, impacting numerous individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. It includes not just physical harm but also emotional, psychological, and financial harm, frequently occurring within close relationships. Statistics show that a significant number of women in India have faced various forms of domestic violence, underscoring the pressing need for strong legal protections and supportive systems.

To address this important concern, the Indian government introduced the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in 2005. This important legislation seeks to offer thorough protection to women against domestic violence, guaranteeing their right to exist in a secure and respectful environment. The Act acknowledges different types of abuse and details specific measures for legal support, such as protection orders, residence orders, and financial assistance. Its importance is in enabling women to pursue justice and find support, while also highlighting the need to tackle domestic violence as a community issue. The Act serves an essential purpose by creating a legal framework that fosters gender equality and protects the rights of women in India.

Judicial Interpretations of the Domestic Violence Act: Notable Case Studies

Harpreet Kaur vs Sh. Manvinder Singh

In the case of Harpreet Kaur vs. Sh. Manvinder Singh, decided on December 6, 2024, by Principal District & Sessions Judge Ms. Madhu Jain at the Saket Courts in New Delhi, the court addressed critical aspects of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). This appeal arose from an earlier order that Harpreet Kaur contested under Section 29 of the DV Act, highlighting her struggle for justice against domestic violence.

Section 29

The appeal was filed on February 7, 2024, and the arguments were heard on November 13, 2024. Harpreet Kaur contended that the earlier decision did not adequately protect her rights and failed to consider the evidence of domestic abuse. Section 29 of the DV Act allows an aggrieved person to appeal against an order made under the Act, which was central to Harpreet’s case.

Section 3

The court evaluated whether Harpreet’s experiences fell within the definition of domestic violence as outlined in Section 3. This section encompasses physical, emotional, sexual, and economic abuse. The court emphasized that domestic violence extends beyond physical harm, recognizing the psychological and emotional impact on the victim.

Section 12

Section 12 of the DV Act allows an aggrieved person to file a complaint seeking protection orders, residence orders, and monetary relief. The court scrutinized whether Harpreet had previously sought such orders and how the responses from the respondents had affected her well-being. The importance of timely intervention in domestic violence cases was highlighted, as delays can exacerbate the victim’s suffering.

Section 18

Moreover, Section 18 addresses the right to reside in a shared household, which was critical in Harpreet’s appeal. The court considered whether her right to a safe living environment was upheld and whether the respondents had violated this right. The judgment reiterated that every woman has the right to live free from fear and violence, and any infringement of this right must be addressed promptly.

In its decision, the court reinforced the need for a comprehensive understanding of domestic violence, urging that all forms of abuse be taken seriously. The judgment served not only to resolve Harpreet’s appeal but also to set a precedent for similar cases, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in protecting women’s rights under the DV Act.

Overall, this case illustrates the complexities of domestic violence and the critical importance of the DV Act in providing legal recourse for victims. The court’s judgment reflects a commitment to ensuring that women can seek justice and live without fear in their own homes.

Epuri Venkata Lakshmi vs E.Rajani

The case of Epuri Venkata Lakshmi vs E. Rajani, decided on December 3, 2024, by the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amravati, focuses on the application of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). This case highlights the legal protections available to women facing domestic violence and the court’s interpretation of these protections.

The petitioner, Epuri Venkata Lakshmi, filed a Criminal Revision Case No. 356 of 2019 against the order dated July 11, 2018, from the VII Additional Sessions Judge, West Godavari Division. The petitioner sought to challenge the previous ruling related to her allegations of domestic violence against her husband, E. Rajani.

In her application under the DV Act, Lakshmi claimed that she was subjected to physical, emotional, and economic abuse by her husband. She sought relief under several sections of the DV Act, which are crucial for understanding her case:

Section 12

This section allows an aggrieved woman to file an application for protection orders. Lakshmi utilized this provision to seek immediate relief from her husband’s abuse.

Section 18

This section empowers the magistrate to issue protection orders to prevent the abuser from committing further acts of domestic violence. Lakshmi requested such an order to ensure her safety.

Section 19

This provision grants the court the authority to issue residence orders, allowing the aggrieved person to continue living in a shared household. Lakshmi sought this to secure her right to reside in her marital home.

Section 20

This section provides for monetary relief to the aggrieved person, covering expenses incurred due to domestic violence. Lakshmi sought financial support from her husband to meet her basic needs.

During the proceedings, the court examined the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and any medical reports documenting the abuse. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the lower court failed to adequately consider the severity of the domestic violence she suffered.

In its judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar, emphasized the importance of the DV Act in safeguarding women’s rights. The court acknowledged that domestic violence not only affects the physical well-being of the victim but also has profound psychological and economic impacts.

The High Court found merit in Lakshmi’s claims and ruled in her favor. It ordered the lower court to reconsider the evidence and provide appropriate relief under the DV Act. The court highlighted that the provisions of the DV Act are designed to protect women from all forms of domestic violence and that the judiciary has a duty to ensure these protections are enforced.

The judgment underscored the significance of providing a safe environment for women and the necessity of legal recourse in cases of domestic abuse. The court’s ruling reinforced the message that domestic violence will not be tolerated and that victims have the right to seek justice and protection under the law.

In conclusion, the case of Epuri Venkata Lakshmi vs E. Rajani serves as a critical example of the application of the DV Act in protecting women from domestic violence. The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision emphasized the need for judicial vigilance in upholding the rights of women and ensuring their safety in domestic settings.

Smt Meenu vs Smt Shakuntla

The case of Smt. Meenu vs Smt. Shakuntla, decided on December 3, 2024, by the Delhi District Court, focuses on the application of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The case was presided over by Special Judge Manu Goel Kharb in Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, under CA No. 1925/2024.

Smt. Meenu, the appellant, filed the case against her mother-in-law, Smt. Shakuntla, and other relatives after experiencing domestic violence. The respondents included Smt. Shakuntla (mother-in-law), Sh. Vikas Saini (brother-in-law), Ms. Meenu Saini (sister-in-law), and Pinki Saini (sister-in-law). The case was instituted on May 6, 2024, with arguments presented on December 3, 2024.

In her application, Meenu alleged that she faced physical and emotional abuse from her in-laws, which constituted domestic violence under the DV Act. The DV Act provides various protections to women facing domestic violence, and several key sections were pertinent to this case:

Section 3

Defines domestic violence, including physical, emotional, sexual, and economic abuse. Meenu claimed that her in-laws engaged in all these forms of abuse, creating a hostile living environment.

Section 12

Allows an aggrieved woman to file an application for protection orders. Meenu utilized this provision to seek immediate relief from her in-laws.

Section 18

Empowers the magistrate to issue protection orders to prevent further acts of domestic violence. Meenu requested such an order to ensure her safety.

Section 19

Provides for residence orders, allowing the aggrieved person to continue living in a shared household. Meenu sought this order, asserting her right to reside in her marital home despite the ongoing abuse.

Section 20

Addresses monetary relief, allowing the court to provide financial support to the aggrieved person. Meenu sought compensation for the hardships she faced due to the alleged domestic violence.

During the proceedings, the court examined evidence, including witness testimonies and any medical reports. The arguments presented highlighted the severity of the abuse Meenu experienced and the failure of her in-laws to provide a safe living environment.

In its judgment, the court emphasized the importance of the DV Act in protecting women from domestic violence. It acknowledged that domestic violence has far-reaching effects on the physical and mental well-being of the victim. The court found substantial evidence supporting Meenu’s claims of abuse and ruled in her Favor.

The judgment ordered the respondents to cease all forms of harassment and granted Meenu protection under the DV Act. The court further directed the respondents to provide her with monetary relief to support her living expenses, recognizing the economic impact of the abuse she suffered.

The case of Smt. Meenu vs Smt. Shakuntla serves as a significant example of the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of women under the DV Act. The court’s ruling reinforced the message that domestic violence will not be tolerated and that victims have the right to seek justice and protection under the law.

In conclusion, the court’s decision in this case highlights the essential role of the DV Act in providing legal recourse for women facing domestic violence, ensuring their safety and well-being in domestic settings.

Kanhiya Goyal vs Priyanka Goyal

In the case of Kanhiya Goyal vs. Priyanka Goyal, the Court addressed an appeal filed by the husband, Kanhiya Goyal, under Section 29 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). This appeal was against the order dated 11.09.2024 of the Learned Trial Court in the matter titled ‘Priyanka vs. Kanhaiya Goyal’, CT No. 792/2024. The focus of the appeal was an application filed under Section 21 of the DV Act, which pertains to the custody of a minor child.

Section 21

The Trial Court had permitted the custody of the minor child to be with the wife, Priyanka, from Thursday to Sunday every week, while granting custody to the husband from Sunday evening to Thursday evening. This arrangement was contested by Kanhiya, who sought a review of the decision, arguing for a different custody arrangement that he believed would be in the best interest of the child.

Section 29

Upon receipt of the appeal, the case was transferred to this Court by order of the Learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara. Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent/wife, who appeared in compliance on 04.10.2024. A reply to the appeal was filed on behalf of the respondent on 22.10.2024, and the arguments of both parties were subsequently heard. Notably, on 27.09.2024, the Court stayed the operation of the impugned order, considering the existing custody arrangement and the welfare of the child.

The marriage between Kanhiya and Priyanka was solemnized on 21.02.2019, and the couple had a child together. The appeal raised significant questions regarding the application of the DV Act in custody matters, particularly in the context of domestic violence allegations. The DV Act aims to provide protection to women from domestic violence and includes provisions for the custody of children, recognizing that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance.

In this case, the Court had to balance the rights of both parents while ensuring the best interests of the child were upheld. The provisions of the DV Act, especially Sections 21 and 29, were pivotal in determining the outcome of the appeal. Section 21 allows for the custody of children to be granted to the aggrieved party, while Section 29 provides a mechanism for appeal against orders made under the Act.

The Court’s decision would not only affect the immediate custody arrangement but also set a precedent for similar cases in the future, highlighting the importance of the DV Act in protecting the rights of women and children in domestic settings. The judgment reinforces the notion that custody decisions must be made with careful consideration of the child’s welfare, taking into account any allegations of domestic violence and the overall family dynamics.

Ultimately, the case of Kanhiya Goyal vs. Priyanka Goyal serves as a significant example of how the DV Act is applied in custody disputes, emphasizing the need for legal frameworks to adapt to the complexities of domestic relationships and the protection of vulnerable individuals, particularly children. The Court’s ruling will likely have lasting implications for custody arrangements in the context of domestic violence, ensuring that the welfare of the child remains the central focus of such decisions.

Smt. Santosh Tyagi vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Others

The case of Smt. Santosh Tyagi vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Others is a significant example of the application of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, in India. This case highlights the legal protections available to individuals facing domestic violence and the judicial approach to such matters.

Smt. Santosh Tyagi, the petitioner, filed a complaint against her husband, alleging various forms of domestic violence, including physical, emotional, and economic abuse. She claimed that her husband subjected her to constant harassment and intimidation, which led to severe mental distress. Santosh sought protection under the Domestic Violence Act, filing an application for relief with the local Magistrate.

Legal Provisions Invoked: The case primarily revolved around several key sections of the Domestic Violence Act:

Section 3

This section defines domestic violence, encompassing physical, emotional, verbal, and economic abuse. The court considered the nature of the allegations made by Santosh to determine if they fell within this definition.

Section 12

Santosh filed her application under this section, which allows an aggrieved person to approach the Magistrate for relief. Her application detailed the incidents of violence and the need for legal intervention.

Section 18

The court was tasked with issuing protection orders to prevent further violence. Given the allegations, it was crucial for the court to establish whether Santosh was at immediate risk.

Section 19

This section addresses residence orders. Santosh claimed that her husband was trying to evict her from their shared household. The court had to consider her right to stay in her home, which was vital for her safety.

Section 20

Santosh sought monetary relief for the financial burdens she faced due to her husband’s actions. The court examined the economic impact of the domestic violence on her life.

Section 22

This section allows for compensation for injuries, including psychological trauma. The court evaluated the mental distress Santosh experienced as a result of the abuse.

The court, after considering the evidence presented, ruled in favor of Smt. Santosh Tyagi. It acknowledged the pervasive nature of domestic violence and the need for protective measures. The judgment emphasized the importance of the Domestic Violence Act in providing a legal framework for safeguarding the rights of individuals facing domestic abuse.

The court issued a protection order under Section 18, preventing the husband from contacting Santosh or entering her residence. Additionally, it granted her a residence order under Section 19, allowing her to remain in her home despite her husband’s attempts to evict her. The court also awarded monetary relief under Section 20, recognizing the economic hardships Santosh faced due to the abuse.

The judgment underscored the court’s commitment to ensuring that victims of domestic violence receive adequate protection and support. It highlighted the need for a robust legal framework to address such issues and emphasized that domestic violence is not merely a private matter but a societal concern that requires judicial intervention.

In conclusion, the case of Smt. Santosh Tyagi vs Government of NCT of Delhi serves as a landmark example of how the Domestic Violence Act can be effectively utilized to protect individuals from abuse. The court’s ruling reinforced the importance of legal protections for victims and set a precedent for future cases involving domestic violence in India.

Amir Subhani Khan vs Meena

The case of Amir Subhani Khan vs. Meena revolves around an appeal filed by the husband, Amir Subhani Khan, under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The appeal challenges the order dated March 6, 2024, issued by the Mahila Court in South-East, Saket, New Delhi, concerning the interim maintenance granted to the wife, Meena.

Section 29

In this case, Amir Subhani Khan appealed against the court’s decision to grant Meena interim maintenance of Rs. 7,000 per month. The husband’s appeal was primarily based on the contention that the order was unjust and not reflective of the actual circumstances of their marriage.

Section 12

Meena had filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act, which allows an aggrieved person to seek protection from domestic violence. In her complaint, she detailed the physical and mental abuse she suffered during the marriage, which was solemnized on May 17, 2017, according to Muslim rites and customs. The allegations included neglect and refusal to provide maintenance despite Amir having sufficient means.

Section 23

Alongside her application under Section 12, Meena also filed an application under Section 23 of the DV Act for interim maintenance. This section empowers the court to provide immediate relief to the complainant while the main case is ongoing. The court’s responsibility is to ensure that the complainant can sustain herself during the legal proceedings, especially in cases of domestic violence where financial dependency is often a significant concern.

During the hearing, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties. Meena’s claims of abuse and neglect were taken seriously, as the DV Act aims to protect women from all forms of domestic violence. The court emphasized that the well-being of the complainant is paramount and that the interim maintenance is crucial for her sustenance.

After reviewing the arguments and evidence, the Mahila Court ordered Amir to pay Meena Rs. 7,000 per month as interim maintenance. The court reasoned that this amount was necessary to ensure Meena’s basic needs were met while the case was being adjudicated. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely financial support in domestic violence cases, as delays could lead to further hardship for the victim.

In his appeal, Amir argued against the amount, but the court upheld the initial decision, reaffirming that the primary objective of the DV Act is to provide immediate relief to victims of domestic violence. The court’s ruling underscored the necessity of financial support in empowering women to seek justice and live independently from their abusers.

The case of Amir Subhani Khan vs. Meena serves as a significant example of how the DV Act is applied in practice. It illustrates the legal framework established to protect women from domestic violence and ensure their rights to maintenance and support during and after abusive relationships. The court’s decision reinforces the principles of the DV Act, emphasizing the need for swift justice and the protection of vulnerable individuals in domestic settings.

This case not only highlights the legal provisions available to victims but also serves as a reminder of the ongoing need for awareness and support for those facing domestic violence.

Smt. Shukla Chakraborty vs Snehanshu Daspandit

In the case of Smt. Shukla Chakraborty vs. Snehanshu Daspandit, decided on December 2, 2024, by the Additional Sessions Judge in Shahdara District, Delhi, the court addressed serious allegations of domestic violence and dowry harassment. This case highlights the application of relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case arose from a revision petition filed against the order dated June 27, 2023, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) at Karkardooma Courts, which discharged respondents 3 to 5. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the subsequent order dated July 14, 2023, where charges under Sections 312 and 313 of IPC, along with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, were not framed against the main respondent, Snehanshu Daspandit.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the MM failed to appreciate the gravity of the allegations made by Shukla Chakraborty. The counsel contended that the learned MM acted arbitrarily by claiming that the allegations were vague. Furthermore, it was emphasized that the judgment from the Bombay High Court, which supports the notion that even distant relatives can be held accountable for offenses committed within the matrimonial home, was overlooked.

The primary allegations included severe physical and mental torture inflicted upon the petitioner by the respondents, which culminated in an incident where the petitioner was allegedly attacked with a knife by one of the respondents. This pointed to a clear violation of the petitioner’s rights and safety within her matrimonial home.

The relevant sections of the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) that apply in this context include:

Section 3

This section defines “domestic violence” and includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, and economic abuse. The petitioner’s claims of physical and mental torture fall under this definition, warranting further investigation and potential charges against the respondents.

Section 12

This section allows any woman who is a victim of domestic violence to file an application for obtaining a protection order under the DV Act. The petitioner has the right to seek protection from the court against the alleged violence.

Section 18

This section empowers the court to grant a protection order to the aggrieved person, preventing the respondent from committing further acts of domestic violence.

Section 19

This section allows the court to provide the aggrieved person with the right to reside in the shared household, ensuring her safety and security.

The court’s decision to not frame charges under the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act raised concerns regarding the judicial interpretation of the evidence presented. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the evidence, if properly considered, could lead to a strong case against the respondents.

In conclusion, the revision petition highlights the critical need for courts to carefully evaluate allegations of domestic violence and dowry harassment. The protection of the aggrieved party is paramount, and the judiciary must ensure that such cases are not dismissed on grounds of vagueness without thorough consideration of the evidence presented.

This case serves as an important reminder of the legal protections available under the Domestic Violence Act and the IPC, and the necessity for courts to uphold these protections for victims of domestic abuse.

Mohit Saxena vs Smt. Pratibha Saxena

In the case of Mohit Saxena vs. Smt. Pratibha Saxena, decided on November 27, 2024, by the Allahabad High Court, the bench comprised Hon’ble Saumitra Dayal Singh and Hon’ble Donadi Ramesh. The case was heard in Court No. 39 and is cited as Neutral Citation No. – 2024:AHC:186266-DB.

The matter arose from First Appeal No. 576 of 2015, where Mohit Saxena, the appellant, challenged the judgment and order dated August 31, 2015, passed by the Principal Judge of the Family Court in Shahjahanpur. The Family Court had dismissed Mohit Saxena’s divorce suit against Smt. Pratibha Saxena, which was filed on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

The appellant’s counsel, Ramendra Asthana, presented the arguments, while the respondent was represented by Amrendra Nath Rai. The court noted that the earlier order had referred the matter to the Mediation Centre, but the mediation efforts had failed, leading the court to proceed with the case.

The marriage between Mohit Saxena and Pratibha Saxena was solemnized on September 9, 2007. The appellant claimed that the respondent had subjected him to mental and emotional cruelty, which he argued constituted valid grounds for divorce. He also cited the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage as a significant factor in his appeal.

The Family Court had previously dismissed the divorce petition, leading the appellant to seek relief from the High Court. In the appeal, the appellant reiterated the allegations of cruelty and emphasized the breakdown of the marital relationship. The bench carefully considered the arguments put forth by both parties.

In terms of the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), several sections are relevant in cases involving allegations of cruelty and emotional abuse. The following sections are particularly important:

Section 3

This section defines domestic violence broadly, encompassing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, and economic abuse. In this case, the appellant’s claims of mental cruelty can be categorized under emotional abuse.

Section 12

Under this section, any woman who is a victim of domestic violence can file an application seeking protection from the court. While this case primarily involves a divorce petition, it highlights the need for protection in cases of emotional and psychological abuse.

Section 18

This section empowers the court to issue protection orders to prevent further acts of domestic violence. If the allegations of cruelty were substantiated, this section could have been invoked to ensure the safety of the aggrieved party.

Section 19

This section provides the aggrieved person the right to reside in the shared household, ensuring her security and well-being in cases of domestic violence.

The High Court’s decision in this case will be crucial in determining whether the allegations of cruelty and the claim of irretrievable breakdown of marriage hold merit. The court’s ruling will not only impact the parties involved but also set a precedent for similar cases in the future.

In conclusion, the case of Mohit Saxena vs. Smt. Pratibha Saxena underscores the complexities surrounding divorce proceedings based on allegations of cruelty and the importance of the Domestic Violence Act in protecting individuals in abusive relationships. The court’s final decision will be awaited with significant interest, considering the implications for both parties and the broader context of family law in India.

Kritika Kaushik vs State And Ors 

Kritika Kaushik vs. State and Ors. is a significant case adjudicated by the Delhi District Court on November 27, 2024. The case was presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Shri Arvind Bansal at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The appeal was registered under Criminal Appeal No. 109/2023, where the appellant, Kritika Kaushik, sought justice against multiple respondents, including the State of Delhi and her husband, Sankalp Sharma, among others.

The crux of the case revolves around the allegations made by Kritika Kaushik against her husband and his family members under various sections of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The appellant claimed that she had suffered mental and emotional abuse during her marriage, which constituted domestic violence as per the definitions laid out in the Act.

Under the Domestic Violence Act, several sections are pivotal in understanding the nature of the allegations:

Section 3

This section defines “domestic violence” and elaborates on the nature of abuse, which includes physical, emotional, verbal, and economic abuse. Kritika’s appeal emphasized that her experiences fell under these definitions, particularly focusing on emotional and verbal abuse.

Section 12

It provides the right to file an application for obtaining protection orders. Kritika filed her appeal seeking protection against her husband and in-laws, arguing that her safety was at risk due to their actions.

Section 18

This section allows the court to issue protection orders to prevent the respondent from committing further acts of domestic violence. Kritika sought such an order, emphasizing the need for legal protection from her husband’s family.

Section 19

 It deals with the right to reside in a shared household. Kritika contended that her right to reside in her marital home was being violated due to the ongoing domestic violence, which further complicated her living situation.

Throughout the proceedings, the court evaluated the evidence presented, including testimonies and documentation supporting Kritika’s claims. The judge considered the emotional distress and the impact of the alleged domestic violence on Kritika’s well-being. The court also examined the responses from Sankalp Sharma and his family, who denied the allegations, asserting that the claims were fabricated to harass them.

The judgment delivered by Judge Arvind Bansal emphasized the importance of protecting individuals from domestic violence, highlighting that such cases require sensitive handling due to their complex emotional and psychological dimensions. The court reiterated that domestic violence is not limited to physical harm but encompasses a range of abusive behaviors that can severely affect the victim’s mental health.

In conclusion, the case of Kritika Kaushik vs. State and Ors. serves as a crucial reference point in the interpretation of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It underscores the judiciary’s role in addressing domestic violence and the necessity of providing victims with legal recourse to ensure their safety and dignity. The court’s decision reflects a commitment to upholding the rights of individuals facing domestic abuse, reinforcing the legal framework designed to protect them.

Jayraj Chetanbhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat

Jayraj Chetanbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat is a significant case decided by the Gujarat High Court on November 27, 2024. The case was presented before Honourable Mr. Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt under the Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 15298 of 2024. The petitioners, Jayraj Chetanbhai Parmar and others, sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them under various sections of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The petitioners filed an application to quash the allegations and criminal proceedings related to Criminal Misc. Application No. 9738 of 2024, which was pending before the Court of the Ld. 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad City. The case involved allegations of domestic violence made by the respondent against the petitioners, invoking several sections of the Domestic Violence Act.

Sections of the Domestic Violence Act Involved:

Section 12(1)

This section allows an aggrieved person to present an application to the Magistrate seeking reliefs under the Act. The respondent in this case had filed an application under this section, claiming to have suffered domestic violence at the hands of the petitioners.

Section 18

This section empowers the court to issue protection orders to prevent the respondent from committing any act of domestic violence. The respondent sought protection orders against the petitioners to ensure her safety and prevent further abuse.

Section 19

This section deals with the right to reside in a shared household. The respondent claimed her right to reside in the shared household was being violated due to the domestic violence perpetrated by the petitioners.

Section 20

This section pertains to monetary reliefs that can be granted to the aggrieved person to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered as a result of domestic violence. The respondent sought monetary relief to cover her expenses and losses.

Section 22

This section allows the court to grant compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence. The respondent sought compensation for the emotional and mental distress she experienced.

Section 23

This section provides for interim and ex parte orders. The respondent sought interim reliefs to ensure her immediate protection and well-being pending the final decision of the court.

The petitioners, represented by advocates Harsh M. Khemka and Rutvik H. Modi, argued that the allegations made by the respondent were baseless and fabricated. They contended that the proceedings were initiated with malafide intentions to harass and defame them. The petitioners sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings to prevent the abuse of the legal process.

After hearing the arguments and examining the evidence, Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt delivered an oral order on November 27, 2024. The court considered the gravity of the allegations and the evidence presented by both parties. The judge emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of individuals facing domestic violence while also ensuring that the legal process is not misused for personal vendettas.

The court decided to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, highlighting the lack of substantial evidence to support the respondent’s claims. The judgment underscored the necessity of a fair and just legal process, ensuring that genuine cases of domestic violence are addressed while preventing the misuse of legal provisions.

The case of Jayraj Chetanbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat serves as a crucial reference in understanding the application of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing the protection of victims’ rights with the prevention of legal harassment. The judgment reinforces the importance of evidence-based proceedings and the need to uphold justice in cases of domestic violence.

M.N.Ramkumar vs R.Parnika

In the case of M.N. Ramkumar vs R. Parnika, decided on 26 November 2024 by the Bangalore District Court, the legal proceedings primarily revolved around the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This appeal was presented under Section 29 of the Act, indicating that it pertains to the rights and protections afforded to women in domestic situations.

The appellant, M.N. Ramkumar, is the father of the respondent, Kum. V. Parnika. The case highlights the complexities that can arise within family dynamics, particularly when it involves allegations of domestic violence. The respondent, Parnika, claimed that she faced various forms of abuse from her father, which she categorized under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

Relevant Sections of the Domestic Violence Act:

Section 3

This section defines domestic violence, which includes physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse. The respondent’s claims fell under these definitions, as she alleged emotional and verbal abuse.

Section 12

This section allows a woman to file a complaint with the Magistrate seeking protection from domestic violence. Parnika utilized this provision to seek relief against her father, arguing that she was subjected to ongoing abuse.

Section 18

This section provides for protection orders. The court can prohibit the abuser from committing any act of domestic violence and can also prevent them from entering the shared household.

Section 29

This section allows for appeals against orders made under the Act. In this case, Ramkumar appealed the decision of the Trial Court, which had presumably favored Parnika.

The judgment delivered by Sri. Krishnamurthy J.B., the presiding judge, emphasized the importance of protecting women from domestic violence, regardless of familial ties. The court acknowledged the emotional and psychological impact of domestic violence on women, which can often be overlooked in legal proceedings.

The appeal raised questions about the credibility of the allegations made by Parnika and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to substantiate her claims. The court examined the testimonies, any supporting documents, and the overall context of the relationship between the parties involved.

In his judgment, the judge stressed that the law aims to provide a safe environment for women and that any form of abuse should be taken seriously. The court also considered the implications of the case on the family unit and the potential for reconciliation, but ultimately prioritized the safety and well-being of Parnika.

The case serves as a critical reminder of the legal protections available under the Domestic Violence Act and the necessity for courts to rigorously assess allegations of domestic abuse. It reinforces the notion that domestic violence is a serious issue that transcends familial bonds and that the law is equipped to address such situations.

In conclusion, the case of M.N. Ramkumar vs R. Parnika illustrates the application of the Domestic Violence Act in protecting individuals from abuse within the family structure. The court’s judgment reflects a commitment to uphold the rights of women and ensure that they are safeguarded from domestic violence in all its forms.

Dr Mayuriben W/O Shaileshbhai Mudhava … vs Dr. Shaileshbhai Ganeshbhai Mundhava

In the matter of Dr. Mayuriben W/O Shaileshbhai Mudhava vs. Dr. Shaileshbhai Ganeshbhai Mundhava, the Gujarat High Court, presided over by Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Nisha M. Thakore, delivered a judgment on November 22, 2024. The case was presented as First Appeal No. 1445 of 2024, with associated civil applications for stay.

The dispute arose from allegations of domestic violence made by Dr. Mayuriben against her husband, Dr. Shaileshbhai. The core issues revolved around the interpretation of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act and the evidence presented regarding the claims of abuse.

Relevant Sections of Domestic Violence Act

Section 3

This section defines domestic violence broadly, including physical, emotional, verbal, and economic abuse. It emphasizes that domestic violence can manifest in various forms, making it crucial to consider the context of the relationship and the nature of the allegations.

Section 12

This section allows a woman to file an application before a Magistrate seeking protection from domestic violence. The court has the authority to issue orders for protection, residence, and monetary relief.

Section 18

Under this section, the court can issue protection orders to prevent the respondent from committing acts of domestic violence. This is a critical aspect of ensuring the safety of the aggrieved party.

Section 20

This section provides for the provision of monetary relief to the aggrieved person. It allows the court to order the respondent to pay for expenses incurred due to domestic violence, including medical expenses and loss of earnings.

In this case, the court analyzed the evidence presented by both parties. Dr. Mayuriben provided testimony and documentation supporting her claims of domestic violence, including instances of physical and emotional abuse. The court evaluated the credibility of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the allegations.

The judges emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of women under the Domestic Violence Act. They acknowledged that the act aims to provide a safe environment for women and prevent further abuse. The court’s decision highlighted the need for a sensitive approach to such cases, considering the emotional and psychological impact on the victims.

The ruling underscored that the burden of proof lies with the complainant, but the court must also consider the broader context of domestic relationships and the dynamics of power and control that often characterize such situations.

The Gujarat High Court’s judgment in this case reinforces the legal framework established by the Domestic Violence Act. It serves as a reminder of the importance of safeguarding women’s rights and ensuring that justice is served in cases of domestic violence. The court’s interpretation of the relevant sections reflects a commitment to upholding the dignity and safety of women in domestic settings.

This case is a significant addition to the jurisprudence surrounding domestic violence in India and provides a clear precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

Sanjaybhai Bachubhai Sharma vs Pranalina Purfulchandra Dipak

In the case of Sanjaybhai Bachubhai Sharma vs. Pranalina Purfulchandra Dipak, decided on December 9, 2024, by the Gujarat High Court, the bench led by Justice Biren Vaishnav addressed significant issues related to domestic violence and the rights of spouses in matrimonial disputes.

The case, registered under First Appeal No. 4269 of 2024, involved the appellant, Sanjaybhai Bachubhai Sharma, and the respondent, Pranalina Purfulchandra Dipak, who is his wife. The proceedings also included multiple civil applications concerning stay orders and amendments related to the appeals.

The core of the dispute revolved around allegations of domestic violence as defined under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent, Pranalina, had filed a complaint against Sanjaybhai, claiming she was subjected to physical and emotional abuse during their marriage. The case highlighted the importance of protecting the rights of women within the domestic sphere and ensuring that they have recourse to legal remedies when facing violence.

Key sections of the Domestic Violence Act relevant to this case include:

Section 3

This section defines domestic violence, which includes not only physical abuse but also emotional, verbal, and economic abuse. Pranalina’s allegations fell under this broad definition, as she described instances of both physical harm and psychological distress caused by her husband.

Section 12

This section allows a woman to file a complaint before a magistrate seeking protection from domestic violence. Pranalina utilized this provision to seek legal protection and relief from her husband’s actions.

Section 18

This section provides for the right to reside in a shared household and prohibits the respondent from dispossessing the aggrieved person from such a household. The court’s decision would have implications on Pranalina’s right to remain in the shared household and her access to financial support.

Section 20

This section addresses the right to monetary relief, allowing the aggrieved person to claim compensation for the harm suffered due to domestic violence. Pranalina sought financial support as part of her plea, arguing that the abuse had led to her financial instability.

In the hearings, the court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including witness testimonies and documentary evidence. The appellant’s counsel argued that the allegations were exaggerated and aimed at tarnishing Sanjaybhai’s reputation. Conversely, Pranalina’s legal team emphasized the need for the court to take a firm stand against domestic violence and support the victim’s claims.

Ultimately, the Gujarat High Court, in its order dated December 9, 2024, ruled in favor of Pranalina, recognizing the validity of her allegations and the need for protective measures. The court granted her the relief sought under the Domestic Violence Act, reinforcing the legal framework designed to protect women from domestic abuse.

The judgment serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary’s role in addressing domestic violence and upholding the rights of individuals within marriage. It underscores the importance of providing a safe environment for victims and ensuring that they have access to justice and support through legal avenues.

This case highlights the ongoing challenges faced by many individuals in abusive relationships and the legal recourse available to them under Indian law, particularly through the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Ritu Kohli And Anr vs Vipin Kohli 

In the case of Ritu Kohli and Anr vs. Vipin Kohli, decided on December 10, 2024, by the Delhi District Court, the court addressed significant issues related to domestic violence under relevant sections of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The appellants, Ritu Kohli and her son Jivesh Kohli, filed an appeal against Vipin Kohli, R.K. Kohli, and Sunita Kohli. The case was presided over by Additional Sessions Judge Sh. Sushil Kumar at Rohini Courts, Delhi. The appellants resided at the same address as the respondents, which raised concerns regarding the domestic environment and the safety of the appellants.

The primary legal framework governing this case is the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which aims to protect women from domestic violence and provide them with a legal remedy. The sections relevant to this case include:

Section 3

Defines domestic violence, stating that it includes physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse. This section is crucial as it sets the foundation for the claims made by Ritu Kohli regarding the treatment she faced at the hands of her husband, Vipin Kohli.

Section 12

Provides the procedure for filing an application for protection orders. Ritu Kohli’s appeal likely included claims for a protection order against Vipin Kohli, asserting that she was subjected to various forms of domestic violence.

Section 18

Discusses the prohibition of domestic violence, which is essential in ensuring that the appellants are protected from further harm. This section would support Ritu’s plea for protection from her husband and his family.

Section 19

Addresses the right to reside in a shared household. Given that Ritu and her son lived in the same residence as Vipin Kohli, this section would be critical in determining whether they could be legally evicted or restrained from the household.

The judgment delivered by the court on December 10, 2024, would have evaluated the merits of the appeal based on the evidence presented, including testimonies and any documentation supporting the claims of domestic violence. The court’s decision would reflect its interpretation of the evidence in light of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act.

In conclusion, the case of Ritu Kohli and Another vs. Vipin Kohli highlights the application of the Domestic Violence Act in safeguarding the rights of women and children in domestic settings. The court’s ruling would not only impact the immediate parties involved but also set a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the importance of legal protection against domestic violence.

This case serves as a reminder of the legal recourse available to victims of domestic violence and the judiciary’s role in upholding these protections.

Nithya G Alis Nithya Reddy vs B Vinod Kumar Reddy 

In the case of Nithya G Alis Nithya Reddy vs B Vinod Kumar Reddy, decided by the Bangalore District Court on November 30, 2024, the legal proceedings were initiated under the Domestic Violence Act, specifically addressing the issues of domestic abuse and protection for the petitioner, Smt. Nithya G. @ Nithya Reddy. This case highlights the importance of legal recourse available to individuals facing domestic violence, offering insights into the judicial approach and the application of relevant sections of the law.

The petitioner, Nithya G. Reddy, filed a criminal miscellaneous petition against her husband, B. Vinod Kumar Reddy, seeking protection from domestic violence. The case was presented to the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Traffic Court-V) in Bengaluru, where the petitioner was represented by her advocate, Sri. H.Y.N. The petition was filed on August 12, 2024, and the judgment was delivered approximately three months later, emphasizing the court’s prompt attention to matters involving domestic violence.

Under the Domestic Violence Act, specific sections are crucial in addressing the rights of the aggrieved party. The primary sections relevant to this case include:

Section 3

This section defines domestic violence, which encompasses physical, emotional, verbal, and economic abuse. In this case, the petitioner alleged that she had faced various forms of abuse from her husband, which warranted legal protection.

Section 12

This section allows an aggrieved person to make an application to the Magistrate seeking protection orders. Nithya’s petition likely invoked this section, asking the court to issue appropriate orders to prevent further violence and ensure her safety.

Section 18

This section empowers the court to grant protection orders to the aggrieved person. The petitioner sought such orders to restrain her husband from committing any further acts of violence against her.

 Section 19

This provision allows the court to provide for the residence of the aggrieved person. Nithya may have requested the court to ensure her right to reside in a shared household or provide alternative accommodation to safeguard her interests.

Section 20

This section addresses the monetary relief that the aggrieved person may seek for maintaining herself and any children. It is essential for the court to consider the financial implications of domestic violence on the victim.

The judgment delivered on November 30, 2024, reflects the court’s consideration of the evidence presented and the application of these sections. The court’s role is to ensure that the rights of the aggrieved party are protected and that justice is served in cases of domestic violence. The decision in this case serves as a reminder of the legal protections available to individuals facing domestic abuse and the judiciary’s commitment to upholding these rights.

In conclusion, the case of Nithya G Alis Nithya Reddy vs B Vinod Kumar Reddy underscores the significance of the Domestic Violence Act in providing a legal framework for addressing domestic abuse. The sections cited highlight the various protections available to victims, ensuring their safety and well-being. The court’s timely intervention in this case exemplifies the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of individuals against domestic violence, reinforcing the importance of legal recourse in such situations.

References

1. Org, https://indiankanoon.org.
2. Live Law, Supreme Court News, Latest India Legal News, Supreme Court Updates, High Courts Updates, Judgments, Law Firms News, Law School News, Latest Legal News, (June 4, 2024), https://www.livelaw.in.
3. Manupatra, An Online Database for Legal Research https://www.manupatrafast.com.
4. Supreme Court of India, India (Dec. 12, 2024), https://www.sci.gov.in.