Case Law On Domestic Violence And Pwdva Enforcement
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) — Brief Overview
PWDVA is a civil law enacted to provide protection to women from domestic violence. The Act covers physical, emotional, verbal, sexual, and economic abuse by a partner or family member in a domestic relationship. It provides for various reliefs such as protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, custody orders, and compensation.
1. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) - Supreme Court
Facts:
The Supreme Court examined whether PWDVA applies only to women living together with the abuser or whether women who have left the relationship can also seek protection under the Act.
Issue:
Does PWDVA apply only to women currently living in the shared household or can women who have been ousted or have left the shared household also claim protection?
Judgment:
The Court held that the Act is not restricted only to women residing in a shared household at the time of filing the complaint. Women who have been forced to leave or have been ousted by the abuser can also seek relief under the Act. This broadened the scope of protection, making it clear that the Act is to protect women irrespective of whether they currently live with the respondent or not.
Significance:
Expanded the interpretation of "shared household" to include those women who were forced to leave.
Recognized the plight of women who face domestic violence and are forced out of the home.
Affirmed the protective intent of the Act over a narrow technical interpretation.
2. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) - Supreme Court
Facts:
The Supreme Court clarified who qualifies as a "domestic relationship" under the Act and who can be held liable for domestic violence.
Issue:
Whether the term “domestic relationship” includes relationships beyond marriage and blood relations, such as live-in relationships, and whether abuse by a live-in partner qualifies as domestic violence.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that the term "domestic relationship" as per the Act is broad and includes both matrimonial and other domestic relationships, such as live-in relationships. A live-in partner is liable for domestic violence under the Act if the relationship is akin to marriage and is more than a casual or short-term relationship.
Significance:
Recognized live-in relationships as part of domestic relationships.
Provided protection to women in non-marital cohabitation.
Stressed that the Act is protective and not punitive, aiming to secure women’s safety in various domestic settings.
3. Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (2016) - Supreme Court
Facts:
The case dealt with the interpretation of the term “shared household” and the scope of protection for women who live with the abuser in their own house but the house is owned by someone else.
Issue:
Whether a woman who resides in her own house but is in a domestic relationship with the abuser can claim protection under PWDVA.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that “shared household” includes any house where the abused woman resides or has resided in a domestic relationship, irrespective of ownership. Thus, the Act protects women who share a household with the abuser, whether owned by them, the abuser, or a third party.
Significance:
Clarified that ownership of the house is irrelevant.
Emphasized the social reality where many women live in rented or family-owned houses.
Strengthened the protective ambit of the Act for women living with their partners or family.
4. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) - Supreme Court
Facts:
This case involved the issue of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the overlap with protection under PWDVA.
Issue:
Whether cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act and domestic violence under PWDVA are the same and how the laws interact.
Judgment:
The Court held that cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act (a ground for divorce) is distinct from domestic violence under the PWDVA, which provides civil remedies and protection. The PWDVA is a standalone protective law focused on immediate relief from violence, while matrimonial cruelty involves marital breakdown and is part of family law.
Significance:
Distinguished between matrimonial cruelty and domestic violence.
Explained the complementary nature of the PWDVA and matrimonial laws.
Reinforced that PWDVA remedies can be availed regardless of the status of marriage.
Summary of Key Takeaways:
| Case Name | Key Aspect | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) | Scope of “shared household” | Women ousted from the household can claim protection. |
| Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) | Inclusion of live-in relationships | Live-in partners liable under PWDVA. |
| Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (2016) | Definition of “shared household” | Ownership irrelevant, protection extended to all residents. |
| Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) | Difference between cruelty & domestic violence | PWDVA is separate from matrimonial cruelty, offers civil remedies. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments