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.
Supreme Court Judg ments- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
