Introduction
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) is a crucial law that safeguards women from abuse in domestic relationships. It offers civil remedies like protection, residence, and maintenance. Over the years, the Supreme Court has clarified key provisions through landmark judgments. These rulings have expanded rights, defined terms like “shared household,” and ensured procedural fairness.
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013)
This landmark judgment confirmed that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), extends civil remedies. Not only to women in formal marriages but also to those in live‑in relationships that amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage.” The Supreme Court scrutinized the couple’s 18‑year cohabitation and applied the Velusamy test (shared household, financial pooling, public perception, etc.). It held that while such relationships are covered under Section 2(f). Domestic violence can include economic neglect, each case must meet the specific criteria to qualify. In this instance, since the relationship lacked mutual financial arrangements, societal recognition, and exclusivity, it did not meet the threshold, and thus Ms. Sarma was not entitled to relief under the Act.
Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2018)
In a progressive ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a woman in a live‑in relationship, even without legal marriage, can seek maintenance under the DV Act, provided her partner’s conduct amounts to domestic violence. The bench of Chief Justice Gogoi, Justice Lalit, and Justice Joseph emphasized that such women are even entitled to greater protections than those under CrPC Section 125, including rights to a shared household and financial relief under Section 20(3) of the DV Act.
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020)
This case expanded the interpretation of “shared household” to include spaces owned by in‑laws or extended family, not just properties owned or rented by the husband. Ms. Sneha Ahuja had cohabited on the first floor of her father‑in‑law’s house, when her husband moved out, she continued to reside there. The Supreme Court ruled in her favor, affirming her right to residence under the DV Act, clarifying that ownership is immaterial when such a space is used as a matrimonial home.
Kamlesh Devi v. Jaipal (2019)
In this judgment, the Court stressed that living in a shared household is a mandatory criterion under the DV Act, mere family ties or adjacency do not suffice. Kamlesh Devi alleged abuse by her nephews but lacked evidence of cohabitation. The Supreme Court upheld dismissal of her petition, stating that vague family connections without shared living arrangements fall outside the Act’s scope.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014)
The Supreme Court addressed misuse of Section 498A IPC (dowry harassment), which is often invoked alongside the DV Act. The Court issued guidelines to prevent arbitrary and excessive arrests, stressing the need for caution to ensure the provision acts as a shield rather than a weapon. This judgment has influenced the procedural safeguards in domestic abuse cases.
Sandhya Manoj Wankhede v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhede (2011)
The Supreme Court held that complaints under the DV Act can be filed not only against adult male members but also against female relatives (e.g., mother-in-law, sister-in-law). This interpretation ensured broader accountability within the family for acts of domestic violence.
Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik (1986)
Although predating the DV Act, this case set an important precedent by holding that prosecution can proceed simultaneously under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act without violating the constitutional protection from double jeopardy. It laid the groundwork for later domestic violence legislation by clarifying the independent nature of penal provisions related to cruelty and dowry.
Kamlesh Devi v. Jaipal (2019)
The Supreme Court emphasized that for an act to be considered domestic violence, there must be evidence of living in a shared household and an actual domestic relationship. Vague or unfounded allegations are insufficient to establish a complaint under the DV Act.
What Do We Understand From These Cases
- Live‑in relationships clarified, eligible only when meeting the Velusamy criteria of marriage-like cohesion.
- Maintenance rights extended, women in qualifying live‑in setups can claim civil remedies and shared household rights.
- Shared household redefined, floors owned by in-laws are covered, regardless of legal ownership.
- Procedural safeguards emphasized, cases without cohabitation or evidence of domestic relationship are dismissed.
Conclusion
The DV Act has evolved through judicial interpretation to offer broader protection to women. This is including those in live-in and non-traditional relationships. The Supreme Court’s judgments have strengthened the Act’s reach and addressed its misuse. Together, these cases form the foundation for a more inclusive and effective legal framework against domestic violence in India.
