Important Judgements on Domestic Violence: Indian Courts on Protection, Residence & Abuse of Women .

Navigating Important Judgements on Domestic Violence and Landmark Live-in Relationship Judgements in India is essential for understanding the legal protections provided to women regarding residence, maintenance, and protection from abuse.

1. S.R. BATRA AND ANR. VS SMT. TARUNA BATRA

FACTS :- Respondent Taruna Batra was married to Amit Batra, son of the Appellants, and they lived on the second floor of a house at Ashok Vihar,
Delhi, belonging exclusively to her mother-in-law, appellant no. 2, not to her husband.

ISSUE :- The main issue was whether the house owned by the mother-in-law could be considered a “Shared household” within the section 2(s) of the
PWDVA, 2005, thus, giving the wife a right to reside there.

JUDGEMENT :- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a shared household only meant a house belonging to or a joint family property where
the husband is a member. As the property was exclusively owned by the mother-in-law, the wife could not claim any right to reside there, and the High
Court’s judgement to the contrary was set aside.

---

2. HIRAL P. HASORA AND ORS. VS KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HASORA AND
ORS

FACTS :- Mother and Daughter filed complaint under PWDVA,2005, but female relatives were discharged under section 2(q) defined ‘respondent” as
an ‘Adult male person’ was Unconstitutional and violative of article 14.

ISSUE :- The central issue was whether restricting the definition of respondent in Section 2(q) to only an adult male person was unconstitutional and
violative of Article 14.

JUDGMENT :- The Supreme court struck down the words ‘Adult male’ from section 2(q) as discriminatory and contrary to the Act’s object of protecting
women from domestic violence. By deleting these words and the dependent proviso, the definition of respondent now includes ‘any person’.

---

3. INDRA SARMA VS V.K.V. SARMA

FACTS :- An unmarried woman (appellant) entered into a long term live-in-relationship with a married man ( respondent), fully aware of his
subsisting marriage and children. After the relationship ended, she sought maintenance and other reliefs under the PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT,2005.

ISSUE :- The key issue was whether this specific live-in relationship, involving a married man and an unmarried woman aware of the marriage, could be classified as a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ within ‘domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act.

JUDGMENT :- The Supreme court dismissed the appeal, holding that the relationship was an adulterous and bigamous arrangement, not a relationship
in the nature of marriage. The women’s status was that of mistress or concubine, which is not protected under the current provision of the DV Act and granting maintenance would be unjust to the legally wedded wife and children.

---

4. D. VELUSAMY VS D. PATCHAIAMMAL

FACTS :- A woman filed for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., alleging she married the appellant in 1986 and lived with him for two or three years
before he deserted her. The appellant contended he was already validly married to another woman named Lakshmi in 1980, presenting evidence of that marriage. The Family court, affirmed by High court, found in favor of the respondent, declaring that the appellant was not married to Lakshmi not
being made a party to the proceedings.

ISSUE :- The case presented two main issues

• Whether a woman in a live-in relationship could claim
  maintenance as a wife under section 125 Cr.P.C. or under
  the protection of women from DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
  ACT,2005, based on the interpretation of a ‘relationship in
  the nature of marriage’.
• Whether a declaration regarding the marital status of a
  third party (lakshmi) was valid without giving her notice
  or a hearing .

JUDGMENT :- The Supreme court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower courts decisions. It held that the finding regarding Lakshmi’s marital status was null and void due to violation of natural justice. The court remanded the matter to the family court to issue notice to Lakshmi, hear her, and determine ,if the appellant’s first marriage was subsisting, which provided guided on ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act, stating that not all live-in relationships qualify for the Act’s benefits and that specific conditions must be met and proved by evidence.

---

5. LALITA TOPPO VS THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

FACTS :- The appellant and respondent no. 2 lived together in a live-in-relationship for a considerable period, resulting in a son, Rohit Oraon.After they separated, the appellant sought maintenance from the respondent under section 125 Cr.P.C., which the family court awarded at Rs. 2,000 p.m. for her and Rs. 1,000 p.m. for their son. The High court of jharkhand set aside the maintenance under section 125.

ISSUE :- The primary issue was whether a woman who lived with a man for a long time without being formally or legally married can claim maintenance
under section 125, Cr.P.C,, considering contradictory opinions and the relevant provisions of the DV ACT, 2005.

JUDGMENT:- The Supreme court granted leave to appeal and referred the
case to a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement on two specific
questions.

1. Whether a long presumption of a valid marriage from living together
   would entitle a woman to maintenance
2. Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for maintenance under
   section 125.
   The court directed that the papers be placed before the CJI for constitution of
   the appropriate bench.

---

6. V.D. BHANOT VS SAVITA BHANOT

ISSUE :- The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 23rd August, 1980 and they lived together until 4th July,2005, when the respondent left the matrimonial home. On 29th November,2006, the respondent, filed a petition under section 12 of the PWDVA,2005, seeking various reliefs.

ISSUE :- Whether a petition under the PWD Act,2005 is maintainable by a woman who has no longer resided with her husband or allegedly subjected to domestic violence before the Act came into force on 26th October,2006.

JUDGMENT :- The Supreme Court affirmed the High court’s view that a petition is maintainable even if acts of domestic violence occurred prior to the
act. It modified the order, directing the petitioner to provide a suitable portion of his residence and pay Rs. 10,000/ – per month for maintenance.

---

7. KUNAPAREDDY @ NOOKALA SHANKA BALAJI VS KUNAPAREDDY
SWARNA KUMARI

FACTS :- Respondent no. 1, the wife, filed a domestic violence case against the appellant (her husband) and his family.

• She alleged harassment, dowry demand and being driven out of her
  matrimonial home.
• The original petition sought protection and maintenance.
• Later, the wife filed an application to amend the petition to include more
  prayers, such as return of stri dhana , additional maintenance and
  compensation.

ISSUE :- Whether a court dealing with a petition under the domestic violence act,2005 has the power to allow amendments to the petition.

JUDGMENT:-

• It affirmed the Trial court’s order allowing the amendment,
  stating that such power exists to avoid multiplicity of
  proceedings and ensure the purpose of the act is not defeated.
• The supreme court held that the proceedings under the DV Act
  are predominantly of a civil nature and thus the court can lay
  down its own procedure.

---

8. KISHOR S/O SHRIRAMPANT KALE VS SOU. SHALINI W/O KISORE
KALE

FACTS:-

1. A wife and son filed a domestic violence complaint against her
   husband.
2. The parties had been living separately for 15 years without any contact
   or communication.
3. The wife and son were already receiving maintenance under section
   125 of the Cr.P.C. since 1996.
4. The husband was accused of economic abuse for allegedly disposing of
   ancestral house property.

ISSUE :- Whether the complaint under the DV Act, 2005 was maintainable given the 15-year separation and absence of recent acts of domestic violence.

JUDGMENT :-

• The complaint was found not maintainable and constituted an abuse of process of law, so it and all lower court orders were quashed.
• The High court held that the overall facts and circumstances must be considered.
• No case of DV could be inferred after such a long gap of 15 years without recent proximity of acts.

---

9. AJAY KUMAR VS LATA@ SHARUTI

FACTS :- An interim maintenance order was directed against the appellant, the brother of the first respondent’s deceased husband, based on their shared domestic relationship and joint business interests.

ISSUE :- Whether an individual in a domestic relationship could be classified as a respondent and held liable for monetary relief under the specific provision of PWDVA, 2005.

JUDGMENT :- The Supreme court dismissed the appeal and upheld the interim order, clarifying that the final determination of whether statutory definitions were met would be decided through evidence at trial.

---