Domestic violence is defined as a violent control exercised by one individual

over another. It is also referred to as building control and terror in a relationship

via various sorts of abuse. Torture can be psychological, sexual, economic, or
physical. This is not merely a social issue; it is also a major violation of human
rights, exposing the victim to health and social consequences. The United
Nations defines it as “intimate partner violence,” which occurs when one person
in a relationship uses threat, mental abuse, manipulation, trying to hurt, injury,
or financial abuse to take control of the other, and whose victim can be anyone,
irrespective of age, gender, race, sexual orientation, class, or belief.

Domestic violence is not limited to those who are spouses or partners; it may
also comprise multiple ties that an individual is bound by inside a family. In
India, for instance, the legal component has given it a broader connotation,
including sisters, widows, moms, single women, and any woman residing in the
same family. As a result, domestic violence covers both intimate partners and
family members. According to Section 3 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act of 2005 (DV Act), any act or omission by the Respondent
that damages, injures, threatens, or abuses physically, sexually, verbally, or
economically constitutes domestic violence.

According to the Union Health Ministry’s National Family Health Survey (NFHS-
4), every third woman in India encounters some sort of domestic abuse from
the age of fifteen. It also said that 31% of married women have experienced
physical, sexual, or emotional torture at the hands of their partners. The main
concern is that only around 10% of these women reported violence. Clearly, this
is a big issue that must be addressed, and women must understand their rights
as well as how to defend them. To address such incidents, the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 was enacted.

Types of domestic violence

We have previously discussed the four categories of violence covered by the
Act. However, in Bhartiben Bipinbhai Tamboli v. State of Gujarat 2018, these
categories were further clarified. It was believed that:

Sexual violence
Sexual violence is a type of physical force that involves any act in which a
woman is compelled to engage in any undesired, dangerous, or demeaning
sexual behavior. It includes calling her names, harming her by using objects
and weapons during sex, and even forcing her to have sex by a spouse or
intimate partner with whom she has consensual sex.

Physical violence
Physical violence is the use of physical force against a woman so that she
sustains bodily harm or injury. Physical assault, criminal intimidation (threaten
to cause harm), and criminal force (use force against a person to injure
him/her) in the form of beating, stomping, punching, abandoning the aggrieved
party in a dangerous place, using weapons to intimidate her, pressuring her to
leave her matrimonial home, injuring her children, using physical force in sexual
situations, and so on.

Emotional violence
Not all abusive relationships are violent and result in physical harm. Many
women are subjected to emotional abuse, which is as damaging as physical
violence. It involves loud names calling, accusing, isolating, scaring, displaying
domineering behaviour, insulting or constantly criticising her.

Economic violence
Economic violence is defined as, a woman not being supplied with enough
money by her spouse to support herself and her children by purchasing clothes,
food, medications, and so on. It also involves prohibiting women from working.
Apart from that, forcibly evicting her from her home by not paying her rent,
denying her of financial resources to which she is entitled under any custom or
law, and limiting her access to shared domestic resources also come under this
category. It also involves selling or alienating her movable or immovable assets,
jewellery, shares, stocks, and other items in which she has a stake.

Laws that deal with domestic violence

cases
In India, there are various laws that specifically address the safety of married
women from their partners and their partners’ families.

Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence

Act, 2005
This is a law passed by the Indian Parliament to safeguard women from
domestic violence. It outlaws a wide spectrum of bodily, sexual, emotional, and
financial abuse against women, all of which are explicitly defined by the Act. It
protects women from men of the family. The Act’s scope includes not just the
protection of women who are married to men, but also women who are in live-
in relationships, as well as family members such as grandparents, mothers, and
so on.

The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

This is a criminal code that punishes the gift and receiving of dowry. The Dowry
Prohibition Act of 1961 outlaws the practice of dowry. If a person provides,
accepts, or even asks for dowry, they can be imprisoned for a half year (i.e. for
6 months) or fined up to 5,000 rupees.

Section 498A IPC

This is a criminal law that applies to spouses or husband’s relatives who are
cruel to women. Harassment for Dowry by relatives of the husband or by the
husband is a crime under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC).
Harassment may take many forms, both physical and mental. Although Marital
Rape is not a criminal offence in India, coerced sex with one’s wife might be
deemed as ‘cruelty’ under this Section. Section 498A covers a wide range of
topics. It also encompasses any and all purposeful behaviour against a woman
that forces her to commit suicide or places her life, limb, or overall health in
danger. In this context, health refers to both the physical and mental health of
women.

How domestic violence laws are misused

Domestic violence laws are frequently used to harass the spouse or any other
family member claiming under him, ensuring that he caves to the unlawful
demands of the so-called victim rather than vice versa. Unfortunately, there
have been a number of examples where Section 498A has been utilised
primarily as a tool for blackmailing. It is often abused as a weapon for exacting
retribution on whole families because under this clause, police can arrest
anybody named as a tormentor in a married woman’s complaint, as ‘cruelty’ in
marriages has been declared a non-bailable offence. Following that, bail under
such circumstances is refused as a basic right.

As a result, many times, elderly parents and other relatives are wrongly
accused of physically and emotionally tormenting the so-called victim,
producing unnecessary tension that may result in bad health for the elderly
parents and physical and mental pain for the accused’s family members.

Even if the charge is proven false, the accused is humiliated by the society. Poor
and uneducated women may have endured the torment of their husband’s
family, but many educated women now use this conduct for illegal motives.

The legislation was rewritten, significantly weighted in favour of women, on the

assumption that only really offended women would come forward to file a
complaint and that they would always speak the truth.

Landmark domestic violence cases in India

Lalita Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand, (2018)

Facts of the case

In the case of Lalita Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2018), which
was heard by the Supreme Court of India, the Complainant, who was not the
Respondent’s legally wedded wife, approached the Court to obtain maintenance
under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, supposing that she will not be allowed to maintenance under Section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In this instance, the Appellant was in a live-in relationship, with whom she had
a kid. When the couple got separated, the Appellant sought support from her
spouse, for which the Gumla Family Court allowed, giving her Rs 2000 per
month and Rs 1000 to her child. The Appellant filed an appeal in the High Court,
which found the family court’s ruling to be incorrect and ruled in favour of the
partner. The Appellant then went to the Supreme Court.

Issue involved in the case

 • Whether a live-in partner can seek maintenance under the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005?

Judgement given by the Court

In the Supreme Court a three-judge Bench composed of the then- CJI Ranjan
Gogoi, Justices U.U. Lalit and K.M. Joseph observed that a live-in partner will be
obligated to even more relief than that envisaged by Section 125 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. Making reference to the provisions of the Domestic
Violence Act, the bench noted that the petitioner in the case would have a
remedy to seek maintenance under the Act despite the fact that she is not the
legally wedded wife and thus not obligated to be maintained under Section 125
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

It was also observed by the Court that domestic violence, according to the
provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, also includes economic abuse.

Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik, (1986)

Facts of the case

In this case, Sunita Malik(Complainant) and her husband, Inder Raj
Mailk(Respondent), were married. To extract more and more money and
articles, the Complainant Sunita was treated cruelly, beaten, starved, and
abused by her husband and in-laws after marriage, particularly during festivals.

One day, she was tortured physically and mentally to the point of fainting in her
matrimonial home, but no doctor was called for her medical checkup.

Sunita Malik was threatened by her mother and brother-in-law with death and
kidnapping unless she compelled her parents to sell their property in Hauz Qazi.
As a result, it was discovered that the Complainant, Sunita Mailk, was treated
cruelly and physically tortured by her husband and in-laws. Sunita Malik was
harassed in order to force her or anyone associated with her to meet an illegal
requirement for movable and immovable property.

Issues involved in the case

 • Are Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1908, and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, subject to the Double Jeopardy provision
of Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution?
• Is Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1908, ultra vires?

Judgement given by the Court

In this particular instance, the Delhi High Court had to decide whether a person
could be convicted under both Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that an individual can be
convicted under both Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1956 and Section
498A of the IPC without facing double jeopardy. The Court held that Section
498A, IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are distinct, since, under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, mere demand of dowry is subject to
punishment, whereas, in Section 498A, an act of cruelty committed against a
newly wedded woman is punishable. As a result, it is possible to conclude that a
person is subject to prosecution under both Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Hiralal P. Harsora and Ors v. Kusum Narottamdas

Harsora and Ors, (2016)

Facts of the case

In this case, The plaintiffs were Pushpa Narottam Harsora and Kusum Narottam
Harsora, a mother-daughter duo. They filed a complaint against Pradeep
(son/brother), his wife, and her two sisters, alleging that the four of them
subjected them to domestic abuse. The Respondents urged the Metropolitan
Magistrate to release Pradeep’s wife and two sisters/daughters since, according
to Section 2(q), a complaint may only be filed against an “adult male.” The
Respondents’ application was denied.

The Bombay High Court ruled that Section 2(q) of the aforementioned Act
should be read in light of the definitions contained in Sections 2(a), 2(f), and
2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Essentially, this
assured that a complaint could be lodged against female family members as
well as the “adult male member.” However, a complaint alleging domestic abuse
cannot be brought primarily against the female members of the household. A
co-Respondent must be an adult male. As a result, the Court did not read down
the term “adult male person.” After this the mother and daughter duo filed a
writ petition in the Supreme Court.

Issue involved in the case

• Whether females can be liable under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

Judgement given by the Court

The Supreme Court struck down adult male from the concept of ‘Respondent,’
holding that it is not founded on any intelligible differentia having a rational
nexus with the purpose sought to be attained. In the same instance, the
Supreme Court clarified that women and non-adults are among the people who
can seek redress under the DV Act. The word “Respondent” in Section 2(q) or
those who can be considered perpetrators of violence against women/against
whom remedies under the DV Act are enforceable cannot be limited to the
phrase “adult male person” in Section 2(q). As a result, remedies under the DV
Act are accessible even against female members and non-adults.

Sandhya Wankhede v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhede,

(2011)

Facts of the case

In the case of (Sandhya Wankhede v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhede), after getting
married in 2005, the Appellant Sandhya lived with R1, R2, and R3 for nearly a
year, which caused problems in her marriage. She filed a police report against
her husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting her.
She also filed an application against all three Respondents, which the First Class
Judicial Magistrate granted, directing R1 to pay the monthly maintenance. All
Respondents were also barred from trying to evict the Complainant from her
matrimonial home. Criminal appeals and applications filed by R1 before the
Sessions Judge and the High Court were denied. R2 and R3 applied to the First
Class Magistrate, but their request was denied. They filed an appeal, claiming
that women cannot be considered Respondents in DV proceedings. The Court
agreed and overturned the order, enabling Appellant to be evicted from her
marriage home, which was solely owned by R2. As a result, it was not a “shared
house.” However, the Court compelled R1 to offer separate lodging or make
further payment for it as an alternative. The Appellant’s appeal in Sessions
Court was replied based on the decision that “females” are not included within
‘Respondents.

The HC similarly took a similar stance, deleting R2 and R3’s names from the
proceedings and ordering the Appellant to quit the matrimonial home. Hence
this appeal was made.

Issue involved in the case

• Whether a complaint can be filed under the Domestic Violence Act only
against an adult male person and not against the husband’s female
relatives, i.e. mother-in-law and sister-in-law?

Judgement given by the Court

However, in the aforementioned instance, the Supreme Court resolved the
question by ruling that the provision to Section 2(q) that doesn’t exclude female
relatives of the husband or male partner from the scope of a complaint that can
be submitted under the Domestic Violence Act. As a result, complaints can be
filed not only against the adult male person, but also against the adult male’s
female relative.

V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, (2012)

Facts of the case

• The parties in this case got married on 23rd August 1980 and on 4th
July 2005 the Respondent(wife) was driven out of her matrimonial
home.
• Thereafter Respondent filed a petition to the Magistrate under Section
12 of the DV Act.
• The Magistrate granted interim relief of Rs 6000 to the wife and
subsequently passed a protection/residence order under Section
18 and 19 of the DV Act protecting the right of The Respondent wife to
reside in her matrimonial home in Mathura.
• Meanwhile, the husband, who served in the armed forces, retired and
filed an application to remove his wife from the government housing.
• Taking this into account, the Magistrate directed the petitioner to
enable his wife to reside on the first floor of her marital house or, if
 that is not practicable, to find alternative lodging close to her
matrimonial home or to pay Rs 10,000 in rental costs.
• She preferred an appeal since she was dissatisfied with the
Magistrate’s decision.
• The appeal was denied, and the Additional Sessions court reasoned
that “because the applicant left the married house on 4.7.2005 and the
Act came into effect on 26.10.2006, the claim of a woman living in a
domestic relationship or residing together prior to 26.10.2006 was not
maintainable.”
• The HC investigated this legal issue in response to an appeal. and it
directed that the action be maintained even though it was taken prior
to the Act’s coming into effect.

Issue involved in the case

• Whether The Domestic Violence Act, 2005 also includes the victims of
domestic violence prior to 2005?

Judgement given by the Court

The Supreme Court agreed with the reasoning given by the HC and held that:

“In our view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that even if a wife, who
had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act
came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005.”

Given the Respondent’s old age, the Court ordered the petitioner to furnish her
with an appropriate portion of his house as well as 10,000 rupees per month for
her maintenance. The Act’s goal was to safeguard women from domestic
violence, hence it should be read in favour of women who are victims of
domestic abuse. The Legislature’s intention was to cover women who’ve been
victims of domestic abuse prior to the Act’s enactment. This was obvious from
the Act’s definitions of the phrases “aggrieved individuals” and “domestic
relationship.” The Domestic Violence Act,2005 is a civil remedy, and the criminal
penalties given in the Act cannot be committed prior to the Act’s entry into
effect, hence enforcing the Act retroactively does not violate Article 20(1) of the
Indian Constitution.

Rajesh Kumar and others v. the State of U.P, 2017

Facts of the case
In this case, Rajesh Sharma (Appellant) and Sneha Sharma (Respondent)
married on November 28th, 2012. Sneha’s father gave the dowry to the best of
his ability, but the Appellants were not pleased. They began harassing or
beating the Complainant and demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- in dowry and a vehicle.
Since the Complainant’s pregnancy had been aborted, the Appellant had left her
at her house. On that occasion, the Appellant was called under Sections 498A
and 323 of the IPC. The wife filed a lawsuit against the Appellant and his family.
She claimed that her husband demanded dowry when she was pregnant and
that she was tormented by her spouse and his family members, resulting in the
termination of her pregnancy.

The Appellants petitioned the High Court to have the summons cancelled, but
the Court denied their request. As a result, the Appellants filed an appeal in the
Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision.

The Appellants, on the other hand, had no intention of making dowry demands.

Issues involved in the case

• Is there a necessity to curb the tendency to involve all members of the
family in resolving a marriage dispute?
• Is Section 498A of the IPC being abused or not?

Judgement given by the Court

In this case, it was determined that in order to protect the innocent person, i.e.,
the husband as well as their relatives, the Court directed the formation of a
“Family Welfare Committee” to deal with Section 498A of the IPC, and that no
one would be arrested until the committee provided justice to the Complainant.
“The committee’s primary goal is to separate genuine cases from fraudulent
ones.” To provide assistance to victims of false complaints. The accused who
wasn’t in the jurisdiction cannot be excused from making personal appearances
in court and must attend through video conference.”

The Supreme Court has recognised that Section 498A of the IPC is being
severely misapplied. In the current instance, the Supreme Court directed the
prosecution of the dowry-related offences and ordered that the harassment or
persecution of the husband and married man be halted. Furthermore, the goal
of this committee is to provide for the restoration of innocent people’s human
rights.
“The spouse and his family members may have different points of view in the
conflict, and arrest and court remand are not the solution.” The ultimate goal of
every judicial system is to punish the wicked while protecting the innocent.”

Arnesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar & Anr, 2014

Facts of the case

In this case, Arnesh Kumar (Appellant) and Sweta Kiran (Respondent) were
married on July 1, 2007. Sweta Kiran claimed in Court that her mother-in-law
and father-in-law sought Rs. 8 lakhs, a Maruti car, an air conditioner, a
television set, and other items, and that when this was brought to Arnesh
Kumar’s attention, he backed his mother and threatened to marry another
woman. She further claimed that she was evicted from her matrimonial house
since the dowry demand was not met. Arnesh Kumar refuted the charges and
filed an anticipatory bail plea, which was initially dismissed by the learned
Sessions Judge and then by the High Court. As a result, Arnesh Kumar has filed
a Special Leave Petition with the Supreme Court.

Issues involved in the case

1. Is it required for a police officer to arrest someone in response to a complaint
if that person is suspected of committing a cognizable offence?
2. What remedies are available to a person if a woman uses section 498A of the
IPC to her advantage?

3. Should the Appellant be granted anticipatory bail?

Judgement given by the Court

The Supreme Court granted the Appellant interim release under specific
restrictions. The Apex Court said that “Section 498A is a cognizable and non-
bailable offence and has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions
that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest
way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this
provision.” According to the “Crime in India 2012 Statistics,” 1,97,762 people
were arrested in India in 2012 for violating Section 498A of the IPC. The
charge-sheeting rate in instances under Section 498 A of the IPC is as high as
93.6%, but the conviction rate is barely 15%. This data clearly demonstrates
how this part has been abused. The most straightforward approach to
harassment is to have the spouse and his family imprisoned under this clause.”
To discourage unwarranted arrests of accused, the Apex Court issued some
required directives for Police to follow before detaining a person.

Bibi Parwana Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (2017)

Facts of the case

In this case, a woman was killed by setting her on fire by her husband and her
family, according to the circumstances of this case. A case was filed against the
husband and his family in which the district court and the High Court ruled
against them. After which, the victim’s sister-in-law and brother-in-law
appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court.

Issue involved in the case

Whether the Appellants had a common intention as the offender?

Judgement given by the Court

After hearing the case and reviewing the evidence, the bench concluded that
both the lower courts erred in law in determining that the charge under Section
304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 held against the
current Appellants.

Based on the information presented, it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable

doubt that the current Appellants, the deceased’s sister-in-law and brother-in-
law, abused the victim in exchange for any such dowry demand.

Neither can it be proven, based on circumstantial evidence, that the Appellants

had any common intention with the deceased’s spouse in the commission of the
crime.

Furthermore, it is abundantly obvious from the documented evidence that they

formerly resided in a separate village.

Kamlesh Devi v. Jaipal and Ors., (2019)

Facts of the case

In this case, the petitioner Kamlesh Devi stated that she and the Respondents
are family members of the same family and they’ve been residing in the same
premises for a long time. The petitioner’s husband is a former BSF officer, and
she has three kids, Urmila, Anusaya, and Gaytri. Anusaya and Gaytri are the
petitioner’s unmarried daughters who attend Krishna Nagar College for their
education. Furthermore, Respondents have formed a gang and are quarrelsome
individuals, and whenever the Petitioner’s daughters, Anusaya and Gaytri, went
to their college, Respondents Jaipal, Krishan Kumar, and Sandeep followed
them and taunted them, as well as engaged them in obscene behaviour.

Sube Singh, the petitioner’s husband, also filed a complaint with the Sarpanch
of Village Gaud against the Respondents, after which the Respondents
apologised in writing on 5.8.2008 in the presence of respected members of the
village. They then returned to normalcy for a short period of time before
resuming their obscene behaviour. As a result, having exhausted all other
options for protection from domestic abuse, the complaint was filed.

After examining the provisions of the Act, the Trial Court determined that none
of the witnesses on record demonstrated any fact to the effect that the
Respondents and the petitioner were living in a shared home and that the
Respondents had committed domestic violence against them.
The trial court also ruled that no violence of any sort was claimed within the
joint household’s grounds. The case was dismissed by the Ld. Magistrate. An
appeal filed with the High Court was likewise rejected.

Issue involved in the case

Whether the Respondents are liable for domestic violence?

Judgement given by the court

The Supreme court said that the High Court correctly concluded that the
elements of domestic violence were completely missing in this case. The
petitioner and Respondents are not residing in the same residence together. The
responders are allegedly family members, according to a vague accusation.
There isn’t even a murmur between the Respondents and the petitioner. They
seem to be neighbours. Hence, the special leave petition was denied

Ajay Kumar v. Lata @ Sharuti, (2019)

Facts of the case

In this case, the Appellant Lata is the Respondent’s brother-in-law, i.e. his
brother’s widow, and they used to live together in a Hindu Joint Family
Property. According to the lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court, there seem to be
no rules in the Act that requires the Appellant to pay maintenance to the
Brother’s wife. Only if they were in a business partnership would he be obligated
to pay the maintenance.

Section 12(1) of the DV Act states that a person may approach a magistrate for
relief or financial relief to compensate for loss sustained by her or her child as a
result of domestic violence, however, this does not include the order of
maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other
law. The lady said that after her husband died, she was not permitted to dwell
in her matrimonial house and was driven out with her kid, and she now has no
means of support for herself and her child.

Issue involved in the case

• Whether brother-in-law comes under the definition of “Respondent”
under Section 2(q) of the DV Act?
Judgement given by the Court
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that under the Domestic Violence Act,
2005, maintenance to a widow can also be provided by a brother-in-law. The
Supreme Court rejected the Appellant’s allegation that Section 2(q) of the
Protection Women from DV Act defines “Respondent” as any adult male
individual who is or has been in a domestic relationship with a partner against
whom the remedy is sought. The Supreme Court drafted a domestic connection
between the woman and her brother-in-law, stating that the brother-in-law and
the woman are a joint family.