#Domestic Violence Act

The Karnataka High Court ruled that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be used to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, unless there is gross illegality or injustice. This clarifies the limits of criminal court interference in civil domestic violence remedies, affecting petitioners seeking to stall DV cases.

The Delhi High Court held that a widow's right to reside in the matrimonial home under Section 17 of the DV Act is independent of the husband's ownership, requiring alternate accommodation or ₹15,000/month rent before eviction. This strengthens protection for widows against arbitrary dispossession.

The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction provisions under the Senior Citizens Act, confirming that tribunals may direct a respondent to vacate premises to protect a senior citizen’s life and property. It clarified that such orders do not infringe the Domestic Violence Act’s shared household safeguard, impacting seniors facing abuse from co-habitants.

The Gauhati High Court held that a revision petition is maintainable against a Sessions Judge's interlocutory order rejecting condonation of delay in a Domestic Violence Act appeal. Condoning delays of 123 and 55 days attributed to change of counsel, the Court directed the appeal to be decided on merits, underscoring that beneficial legislation like the DV Act warrants a liberal approach to procedural technicalities to ensure substantive justice for victims.

Supreme Court set aside Kerala HC’s order, holding that a valid settlement agreement extinguishing monetary claims prevents any later complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that filing such a complaint is an abuse of process. Settled spouses are thus shielded from re-litigation.

The Delhi High Court ruled that a claim of residence under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act does not stay a civil suit for possession, as the Act offers only protective relief, not a bar to eviction. Property owners can therefore proceed with eviction even when the occupant invokes a residence right under the DVA. This clarifies the limited scope of Section 17 in property disputes.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that major individuals in consensual live-in relationships are entitled to police protection against threats from family members, affirming their right to personal autonomy under Article 21 and extending the scope of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act beyond marital ties. This sets a critical precedent for safeguarding adult couples from coercive family interference, regardless of marital status.

Allahabad High Court rules that compliance with a compromise agreement, including full payment of maintenance under Section 125(3) CrPC, extinguishes the wife's right to continue litigation. The judgment reinforces that post-payment, proceedings must be quashed to prevent abuse of process, setting a precedent for similar matrimonial disputes.

Bombay High Court rules that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are untenable without a proven domestic relationship. The court granted ad-interim relief, emphasizing that cohabitation or shared household is a prerequisite for invoking the Act’s protections.

The Bombay High Court modified a visitation order to shift the venue from Jaisingpur to Rahata, prioritizing the minor children's educational stability and reducing logistical burden on the custodial parent. This reinforces that visitation arrangements must adapt to the child's daily life, not just procedural convenience, setting a practical standard for family courts handling cross-jurisdictional custody disputes.

Allahabad High Court rules that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act can continue post-divorce if allegations relate to the period of marriage, dismissing a quashing plea under Section 482 CrPC.

Karnataka High Court upholds Rs. 10,00,000 compensation under the PWDV Act, ruling that a 'domestic relationship' need not be established solely by a marriage certificate. Admissions, digital evidence, and conduct can suffice, expanding protection for aggrieved women in non-formalized relationships.

Karnataka High Court affirms Rs. 20,000/month maintenance and Rs. 3,00,000 compensation under the Domestic Violence Act, ruling that bigamy and sustained emotional abuse qualify as domestic violence even if prior litigation attained finality. The judgment reinforces that economic relief under Section 12 is not barred by res judicata when new acts of violence emerge.

Gauhati High Court clarifies that quashing under Section 482 CrPC in Domestic Violence Act cases is restricted to relatives not residing with the aggrieved party. The ruling mandates trial for the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law, emphasizing that specific allegations of abuse cannot be dismissed at the quashing stage. This sets a precedent for stricter scrutiny of DV Act proceedings against immediate family members.

The Karnataka High Court held that a niece, who never resided in the matrimonial home and had no domestic relationship under the PWDVA, cannot be prosecuted for domestic violence based solely on vague allegations of petty quarrels during infrequent visits. This ruling reinforces that the Act’s protections extend only to those within a recognized domestic relationship, preventing its misuse against peripheral family members.