Domestic Violence Law in Indiaभारत में घरेलू हिंसा कानून
All Relief Sections — S.17 to S.23
Who Can File — Domestic Relationship
Under Section 2(a) of the PWDV Act, an "aggrieved person" means any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence. The key elements are:
| Category | Eligible | Key Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Wife against husband | Yes — clearly covered | Subsisting or past marriage |
| Woman in live-in relationship | Yes — if relationship is "in the nature of marriage" (SC tests apply) | Both must be of marriageable age, neither should have existing spouse, cohabitation for significant period |
| Daughter-in-law against mother-in-law / father-in-law | Yes — covered under "domestic relationship" | Must have shared household with respondent |
| Sister, widow, mother (against relatives) | Yes — any woman in domestic relationship | Must have shared the household |
| Divorced woman against ex-husband | Yes — past domestic relationship covered | Kerala HC 2023 confirmed this |
| Woman against female respondent | Yes — "adult male" deleted by SC in Hiral Harsora (2016) | Female in-laws, relatives can be respondents |
| Live-in with married man (non-matrimonial) | Limited — SC held such relationship NOT in nature of marriage in certain cases | Depends on facts — courts examine nature of relationship |
Step-by-Step Procedure
Documents Required
Limitation & Time Periods
Relevant Laws & Statutes
Landmark & Recent Judgments
Recent Developments
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. The Supreme Court in Bhawna v. Bhay Ram (2023) held that it is not necessary that the domestic relationship be subsisting at the time of filing the application. A past domestic relationship is sufficient. Even if the woman has left the shared household due to the violence, she can file a Section 12 application and claim reliefs including residence rights under Section 17.
Yes — under Section 23(1) of the PWDV Act, the Magistrate can grant an ex-parte interim protection order on the same day if satisfied that there is a need for immediate relief. This can be done without giving notice to the respondent. The order becomes effective immediately. This is critical in emergency situations where immediate protection is needed to prevent further violence or threats.
Yes. The Supreme Court in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (2016) struck down the words "adult male" from Section 2(q) of the PWDV Act. This means female relatives — including mother-in-law, sister-in-law, and other female family members — can be named as respondents in a DV case. However, the Bombay HC has observed (2024) that the scope against certain relatives (father and brother of daughter-in-law) may be limited depending on facts.
No — they are independent proceedings. A DV case under PWDV Act is a civil remedy, while Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS for offences after 1.7.2024) is a criminal complaint. Both can be filed simultaneously and one does not affect the other. However, the J&K HC (2023) held that merely because DV proceedings are initiated, it is not a bar to filing an FIR under Section 498A IPC. Courts treat them as parallel but independent remedies.
Yes — subject to the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court. In Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2021), the SC overruled S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra (2007) and held that "shared household" under Section 2(s) is exhaustive and includes any house where the aggrieved person has lived in a domestic relationship — even if it belongs to in-laws and not to the husband. However, the SC also noted that this must be balanced with the rights of other occupants, and the Magistrate has discretion in fashioning relief.
Section 17 is a right — it declares that an aggrieved woman has the right to reside in the shared household regardless of her legal title or interest. It is a declaratory provision. Section 19, on the other hand, is an order that the Magistrate can pass — it can direct the respondent to stop disturbing the woman's possession, remove himself from the household, restrain him from entering parts of the household, or direct him to pay rent for alternative accommodation. Section 17 creates the right; Section 19 is the remedy the court uses to enforce and protect it.
Unlike regular criminal complaints, there is no fixed statutory limitation period for filing an application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act. The Supreme Court in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab (2011) held that there is no limitation period prescribed under the PWDV Act for filing a DV complaint. The rationale is that domestic violence is often an ongoing phenomenon, and each act of violence gives rise to a fresh cause of action. However, unexplained delay may affect the credibility of the case and the court's exercise of discretion in granting relief.
Breach of a protection order or interim protection order under Section 31 of the PWDV Act is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. The respondent can be arrested without a warrant. Punishment is imprisonment up to 1 year and/or fine up to Rs. 20,000. On repeated breach, imprisonment may extend to 2 years. The aggrieved person can directly approach the nearest police station to report the breach and get the respondent arrested. She can also file a complaint before the Magistrate.
Yes — if the live-in relationship qualifies as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" as defined by the Supreme Court in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010). The five conditions are: (1) both hold themselves out as husband and wife in society; (2) both are of legal age to marry; (3) neither has a subsisting valid marriage; (4) they have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period; (5) they have lived in a shared household. A purely casual relationship or a "keep" arrangement does not qualify. The burden is on the woman to prove the qualifying nature of the relationship.
Both can be claimed, but cannot be simultaneously enforced for the same period to avoid double recovery. The Delhi HC and various High Courts have held that the right to claim under S.20 PWDV Act does not preclude claiming maintenance under S.125 CrPC/S.144 BNSS or S.24 HMA. However, if maintenance is already being paid under one order, the court will adjust the quantum under the other order accordingly. The woman should pursue both remedies and let the courts adjust the amounts.