Domestic Violence act cases(AIS):
1. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma.
In the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, the Supreme Court of India
addressed the issue of whether a live-in relationship falls under the definition
of a "domestic relationship" under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005. The appellant, Indra Sarma, had been in a live-in
relationship with the respondent, V.K.V. Sarma, for 18 years, despite knowing
that he was married. When the relationship ended, Indra Sarma sought
maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, claiming that V.K.V. Sarma's
failure to maintain her constituted domestic violence.
The Court held that a live-in relationship does not amount to a "relationship in
the nature of marriage" if the woman knows that the man is already married.
The judgment clarified that the Domestic Violence Act aims to protect women
in genuine relationships where they have a reasonable expectation of support
and stability, not those who knowingly enter into relationships with married
individuals. The Court emphasized the need to balance the protection of
women's rights with the recognition of the sanctity of marriage.
The Supreme Court, while affirming the High Court’s order, created an
exception to the general rule. The Supreme Court clarified that a woman who
begins to live with a man who is already married to someone else, without
knowing that he is married, will still be considered to be in a “domestic
relationship” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005; thus, the man’s failure to maintain her will amount to “domestic
violence” within the meaning of the Act and she will be eligible to claim reliefs
such as maintenance and compensation.
Line given by sir for this case in class – Domestic violence act provides civil
remedies and protects legal and constitutional rights of women.
2. D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal.
In the case of D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, the Supreme Court of India laid
down specific criteria to determine whether a live-in relationship qualifies as a
"relationship in the nature of marriage" under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The criteria are as follows:
1. The couple must hold themselves out to society as akin to spouses.
2. They must be of legal age to marry.
3. They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including
being unmarried.
4. They must have lived together in a shared household.
5. They must be cohabiting for a prolonged period of time.
6. They are residing voluntarily.
3. Hiralal P. Harsora and Ors. v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors.
In the case of Hiralal P. Harsora and Ors. v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and
Ors., the Supreme Court of India addressed the constitutional validity of
Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The provision defined the term "respondent" as any "adult male person" who
is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The
petitioners challenged this definition, arguing that it was discriminatory and
violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the
law.
The Court held that the use of the term "adult male person" was
unconstitutional as it excluded female members of the family who could also
be perpetrators of domestic violence. The Court struck down this part of the
definition and replaced "adult male" with "person," thereby broadening the
scope of the Act to include any individual, regardless of gender, who could be
held accountable for domestic violence. This decision was significant in
ensuring that the Act provided comprehensive protection to women against
domestic violence, irrespective of the gender of the perpetrator.
4. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade.
In the case of Sandhya Manoj Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade, the
Supreme Court of India clarified the ambit of respondents under the Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court held that the term
"respondent" includes not only the husband but also female relatives and
other male abusers who may be involved in domestic violence. This
interpretation ensures that women have comprehensive protection under the
Act, allowing them to seek relief against all individuals who may be
perpetrating violence or aiding and abetting it. The judgment reinforced the
Act's objective to provide effective remedies and safeguard the constitutional
rights of women against domestic violence.
5. S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra
In the case of S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, the Supreme Court of India clarified
the definition of a "shared household" under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court held that a shared household includes
the house owned or rented by the husband or the house belonging to a joint
family in which the husband has a share. This means that the wife can claim
the right to residence in such a shared household.
The case involved Taruna Batra, who was living with her husband Amit Batra in
a house owned by Amit's mother. When their relationship deteriorated, Taruna
sought to claim residence rights in the second floor of the property. The Court
ruled that since the property was owned by Amit's mother and not Amit
himself, it did not qualify as a shared household under the Act.
This judgment is significant as it narrows the scope of what constitutes a
shared household, ensuring that the rights of women under the Domestic
Violence Act are balanced with the property rights of other family members.
6. Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
In the landmark case of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, the Supreme
Court of India significantly expanded the definition of a "shared household"
under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court
held that a shared household is not limited to a property exclusively owned or
rented by the husband; it also includes properties owned by his relatives,
provided the aggrieved woman has lived in that household in a domestic
relationship.
In this case, Sneha Ahuja sought residence rights in a house owned by her
father-in-law, where she had lived with her husband after marriage. The Court
overruled its previous decision in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, which had held
that only a house owned by the husband could be considered a shared
household. The Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja ruled that the
definition should be interpreted broadly to provide effective protection to
women under the Act.
This judgment ensures that women have a secure place to reside, even if the
property is owned by their husband's relatives. It reinforces the Act's objective
to provide comprehensive protection and uphold the rights of women against
domestic violence.
7. Pritam Singh V. State of U.P.
Held that, even if the violence was inflicted before the enactment of the act,
the complaint was valid. A complaint can be given in retrospective effect
because civil laws have retrospective effects and under this act civil remedies
are given.
