• D V Act

  • The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D V Act) (D V Act), provides for effective protection of the rights of the women guaranteed under the Constitution of India, who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

    The D V Act is a legislation aimed at strengthening the economic independence of a woman. Financial deprivation of the women and their economic abuse are dealt in it at length. As per the D V Act, it is the social and legal obligation of the husband to make arrangement for maintenance of the wife. The higher Courts of the Country, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, have upheld this legal proposition in their multiple judicial pronouncements, made from time to time. 

    The higher Courts of the Country, have however clarified it in the number of D V Act Cases in India that the issue of economic abuse and maintenance cannot be generalized. Every Case would need to be examined and adjudicated upon in the backdrop of its own peculiar facts and circumstance. The same is their view on the quantum of maintenance amount.  

    The Courts have held from time to time that the amount of maintenance fixed for wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case.

    There have been instances when the Courts have directed husbands to either get a job or dispose off his assets to maintain his estranged wife.

    As for a husband, it is open for him to take a plea that it is due to the persecution and vilification of his wife that he had to leave his job and does not have sufficient means to support even himself what to say of the wife. The wife, on the other hand can refute his claims and is free to contend that he had resigned from his job just to escape from the liability of maintenance.

    For convenience sake, we have divided the topics, as given in the D V Act, in the following categories.

    To know more about D V Act, go on clicking on the following links

    Maintainability Issue 

    Monetary, Custody & others

    Criminal Courts

    [In Hierarchical Order]

    • Supreme Court Of India
    • High Courts Of Various States-      [Revision U/S- 397/ RW S-482 CrPC lie before Session Judge]
    • Sessions Judge-                           [Appeal U/S- 29 of the DV Act lie before Session Judge]
    • Metropolitan Magistrates [MM]/Judicial Magistrates [JM]
    • Mediators & Concilliators.

    Legislations Governing DV Act Issues




    • Section-4: Information to Protection Officer and exclusion of liability of informant
    • Section-8: Appointment of Protection Officers
    • Section-10: Service providers
    • Section-11: Duties of Government



    • Section-31: Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent
    • Section-32: Cognizance and proof.

    Judgments: Domestic Violence Act [D V Act]

    Judgments on quashing under S-482 Cr.P.C.

    • Suo Motu Versus Ushaben Kishorbhai Mistry, Criminal Reference No. 6 Of 2015 In Special Criminal Application No. 5313 Of 2015, Judgment Dated- 27.11.2015, Bench- Jayant Patel, ACJ, N.V.Anjaria, J. Gujrat High Court- S-482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by High Courts for quashing a DV Act Complaint Case before the Magistrate [Full PDF Judgment]. 

    Judgments On S-2(s) of DV Act [Shared Household]:

    • S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Tarun Batra, Appeal (Civil)  5837 of 2006, Judgment dated: 15.06.2006, S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju, JJ, Supreme Court of India- Shared Household, as defined under section-2(s) of D V Act- In laws’ property not covered under Shared Household [Full PDF Judgment].

    Judgments On S-2(q) of DV Act [Respondent Means]:

    • Hiral P. Harsora And Ors. Versus Kusum Narottamdas Harsora And Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10084 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 06.10.2016, Bench: Kurian Joseph & R.F. Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India; Citation: (2016) 10 SCC 165 [Full PDF Judgment]: Constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.- Held, "46. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stands deleted....".

    Judgments On S-19(1)(a) of DV Act [Restraining the respondent from dispossessing the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household]:

    • Roma Rajesh Tiwari-BomHC-12.10.2107-S-19(1)(a)-Restraint Orders qua Residence [Full PDF Judgment].

    Judgments On S-19(b) of DV Act [Directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household]

    • Samir Vidyasagar Bhardwaj-SC-09.05.2017-S-19(1)(b) of DV Act- Husband can be removed from his own house [Full PDF Judgment].


    • Abdulrahim Abdulmiya Pirzada & 1 Other Versus State Of Gujarat & 2 Others, Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 3993 of 2014,  Judgment Dated: 21.01.2016, Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, JJ, Gujrat High Court-Issue, maintenance rights of the wife against her in-laws- Held, "From the principles enunciated in the above referred decisions, it is apparent that any right which the wife has during the subsistence of her marriage and during the lifetime of her husband is against the husband and she has no right to claim any relief against the father-in-law or sister-in-law or any of the relatives of her husband inasmuch as the obligation to maintain her lies only on her husband. The complaint in question, therefore, appears to have been filed with the malafide intention to wreak vengeance for the purpose of settling personal scores and would fall within the ambit of Illustration (7) of the Illustrations delineated by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604, viz. that the proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. For the aforesaid reasons, this application is allowed. The impugned order is hereby ordered to be quashed so far as the applicants are concerned. ".
    • Amee Sharan Desai Versus Sharan Sanjeev Desai, Writ Petition No. 8825 Of 2014, Judgment Dated: 23.08.2016, Bench: Ranjit More, J, Bombay High Court: Issue No.1, interim maintenance proceedings under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.- Issue No.2, From which date the wife would  be   entitled  to   claim  the  amount  of maintenance pendent  lite.- Referred to and relied upon Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Versus District Judge Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; & Bhuwan Mohan Singh Versus Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353; where it is held by the SC that the wife is entitled in law to lead a life in the similar manner as she would have lived in the house of her husband. The husband cannot take subterfuges to deprive his wife of the benefit of living with dignity.- Held, “18. Taking totality of the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration especially the deposits and withdrawals of amounts by the Respondent as disclosed from the bank statement and debit card statements and statement made by the Respondent in his reply in the DV Act proceedings, in my opinion, the ends of justice would be met if the Respondent is directed to pay to the Petitioner interim maintenance @ Rs.1 lac per month from the date of the impugned order”.
    • Amit Agarwal and others Versus Sanjay Aggarwal and others, Crl. Misc. No.M-36736 of 2014 (O&M), Judgment Dated: 31.05.2016, Bench: Anita Chaudhry, J, Punjab & Haryana High Court: Issue, Quashing Of DV Act Complaint & Summoning Orders- Held, "Considering the above, it is held that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of the Court. The domestic relationship had come to an end. The complainant had impleaded relatives who were not living in the shared house and permitting the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint would be an abuse of the process of law. The complaint and the proceedings therein are quashed.".
    • Chiranjeev Kumar Arya Versus State Of U.P. & Another, CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 879 of 2015, Judgment Dated: 29.06.2016, Bench: Sudhir Kumar Saxena ,J, Allahabad Delhi  High Court- Issue, Maintainablity of revision against against the order passed in appeal under Section 29 of the D V Act- The HC held the Revision to be maintainable.
    • Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Versus. District Judge, Dehradun and Ors., Judgment Dated: 27.08.1997, Bench: Sujata V. Manohar, D. P. Wadhwa, JJ, Supreme Court Of India; Citation: (1997) 7 SCC 7: Issue No.1, Quantum of maintenance, pendent  lite,  under Section 24  of the  Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.- Issue No.2, From which date the wife would  be   entitled  to   claim  the   enhanced  amount  of maintenance pendent  lite.- Held, “The Court has to consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity of the husband to pay having regard to his reasonable expenses for his own maintenance and of those he is obliged under the law and statutory but involuntary payments or deductions. The amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she lived with her husband and also that she does not feel handicapped in the prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or extortionate.” Further held, “The question then arises as to from which date the wife would  be entitled to claim  the   enhanced  amount  of maintenance pendente  lite. If  wife has no source of income it is the obligation of the husband to maintain her and also children of  the marriage  on the  basis  of  the  provision contained in  the Hindu  Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Her right to claim maintenance fructifies on the date of the filing of  the petition  for divorce  under the  Act. Having thus fixed  the date  as the  filing  of  the  petition  for divorce it  is not  always that  the court  has to grant the maintenance from  that date. The court has discretion in the matter as to from which date maintenance under Section 24 of the Act should be granted. The discretion of the court would depend upon  multiple circumstance  which are  to be kept in view. These could be the time taken to serve the respondent in the  petition the date of filing of the application under Section 241  of the  Act; conduct  of  the  parties  in  the proceedings; averments made in the application and the reply there to; the tendency of the wife to inflate the income out of all  proportion and  that of  the husband to suppress the same; and  the like.  There has to be honesty of purpose for both the parties which unfortunately we find lacking in this case. We are therefore  of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if we direct that maintenance pendente lite as fixed by  this judgment  to be  payable  from  the  date  of impugned order  of the High Court which is October 16, 1996. We order  accordingly. The  impugned judgment  of  the  High Court shall  stand modified  to that  extent.”.
    • Krishna Bhatacharjee Versus Sarathi Choudhury And Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 1545 Of 2015 (@ SLP(Crl) No. 10223 Of 2014), Judgment Dated 20.11.2015,  Dipak Misra, J & Prafulla C Panta, J, Supreme Court Of India- Judicially separated wife is an “aggrieved person” under section 2(a) of the DV Act, 2005 Act.     
    • Kusum Sharma Versus Mahinder Kumar Sharma, FAO 369/1996, Judgment Dated: 14.01.2015, Bench: J R Midha, J, Delhi  High Court: Issue, Affidavit of income and assets to be filed by the Husband & Wife in the proceedings seeking maintenance- The following came up for discussion and consideration by the Bench:Affidavit of income and assets provided in Form 16A of APPENDIX-E under Order 21 Rule 41(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure- Burden of proving the income- The following judgments were also referred and relied upon: Puneet Kaur v. Inderjit Singh Sawhney, 2011 (183) DLT 403 and many others- Multiple directions were issued in this Case and a format of the Affidavit of Income was also prepared and made part of the Order/ Judgment itself, directing all the subordinate Courts to ensure the compliance of this Judgment/ Order. Final Conclusion in the Judgment: “Conclusion: 19. On careful consideration of the valuable suggestions given by the Courts below, learned amici curiae and the counsels for the parties, the order dated 18th September, 2014 is modified and the modified directions are as under: - 19.1 Matrimonial jurisdiction is of a special nature and deserves a special attention. Lengthy trial in matrimonial proceedings is uncalled for and contrary to the spirit of Hindu Marriage Act.- 19.2 The affidavit of assets, income and expenditure of both the parties are necessary to determine the rights of the parties under Sections 24 to 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, should be filed by both the parties at the very threshold in order to curb the delay and expedite the trial in terms of Section 21-B of the Hindu Marriage Act.- 19.3 Applying the aforesaid principles laid down in Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act relating to the duty of the Court to ascertain the truth and the duty of the parties to disclose their income under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court has formulated the format of the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure attached to this order as Annexure ‘A’ which shall form part of this judgment. The documents required to be filed along with the affidavit are prescribed in the format of the affidavit.- 19.4 All pleadings including petitions under Sections 9 to 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the written statement shall be accompanied with an affidavit of assets, income and expenditure in the format provided in Annexure A and shall be accompanied by the relevant documents mentioned therein.- 19.5 If the petitioner claims maintenance, application under Section 24 should be filed along with the petition. However, if respondent claims maintenance, the application under Section 24 along with the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure in the format provided in Annexure A along with the response to the petitioner’s affidavit should be filed within 30 days of the service of the notice.- 19.6 The response to the respondent’s affidavit of assets, income and expenditure be filed by the petitioner within two weeks thereafter and the case be listed for disposal of the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. If the parties are unable to file their response within two weeks, Court may suitably extend the time period upon sufficient cause being shown.- 19.7 The Court may also call upon the parties of to file such an affidavit in pending cases of maintenance if the parties have not already disclosed their true income.-19.8 Paras 33.3 and 33.5 of the order dated 18th September, 2014 are modified to the extent that the parties shall file the affidavit of their assets, income and expenditure in format provided in Annexure A, instead of the affidavit prescribed in Puneet Kaur v. Inderjeet Sawhney (supra).- 19.9 There may be cases where one of the spouse has sufficient means of sustenance and therefore, the application under Section 24 is not warranted at the initial stage. In such cases, the concerned spouse need not file the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act but shall specifically mention this fact in the pleadings i.e. petition/written statement, as the case may be. In such cases, the written statement along with the affidavit in the format provided in the Annexure A be filed by the respondent within 30 days of the service of summons. However, this would not preclude the filing of the application under Section 24 at a later stage, if the circumstances so warrant.- 19.10 Even in cases where Section 24 is not invoked by either of the parties, the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure in terms- of Annexure A shall be filed by both the parties for the purpose of adjudicating claims under Sections 25 to 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which may be raised at a later stage. If the affidavits of the parties are on record, the claim under Sections 25 to 27 would not delay the proceedings.- 19.11 If the claim of permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act is raised before the appellate Court, as in the present appeals, the appellate Court can direct the parties to file their affidavits of assets, income and expenditure in terms of Annexure A. However, if such affidavits of the parties are already on record, the adjudication of claim under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act would not delay the proceedings.- 19.12 The Court shall ensure that the filing of the affidavits by the parties is not reduced to a mere ritual or formality. The Court shall scrutinize the affidavit threadbare and may decline to take the same on record unless it contains complete particulars mentioned Annexure A and is accompanied by the documents mentioned therein.- 19.13 If the affidavit filed by the parties is not in the prescribed format or is not accompanied with the relevant documents, the learned Court shall not return it back to the filing counter as being done by same Courts. It would be appropriate for the Court to grant reasonable time to the parties to remove the defects/ deficiencies instead of returning back the affidavit to the filing counter.- 19.14 If a party has made concealment or false statement in his/her affidavit, the opposite party shall disclose the particulars of the same in his/her response on affidavit along with the material to show concealment or false statement. The aggrieved party may also seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure.- 19.15 Whenever a party discloses sufficient material to show concealment or false statement in the affidavit of the opposite party, the Court may consider examining the deponent of the affidavit under Section 165 of the Evidence Act to elicit the truth. In appropriate cases, the Court may direct a party to file an additional affidavit relating to his assets, income and expenditure at the time of marriage and/or one year before separation and/or at the time of separation.- 19.16 If the statements made in affidavit of assets, income and expenditure are found to be incorrect, the Court shall consider its effect while fixing the maintenance. However, action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is ordinarily not warranted in matrimonial litigation till the decision of the main petition.- 19.17 At the time of issuing notice, the Court shall consider directing the petitioner to deposit such sum, as the Court may consider appropriate, on the basis of petitioner’s affidavit, for payment to the respondent towards interim litigation/part litigation expenses. However, in cases such as divorce petition by the wife who unable to support herself and is claiming maintenance from the respondent husband, it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioner-wife to pay the litigation expenses to the respondent- husband.- 19.18 If the disposal of maintenance application is taking time, and the delay is causing hardship, ad-interim maintenance should be granted to the claimant spouse on the basis of admitted income of the respondent.- 19.19 The application under Section 24 should be decided as expeditiously as possible otherwise the very object of the proviso to Section 24 would be defeated.- 19.20 The aforesaid procedure be followed in all cases relating to maintenance including cases under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Special Marriage Act, 1954 Indian Divorce Act, 1869 as well as Section 125 Cr.P.C.- 19.21 It is clarified that the directions contained in the order dated 18th September, 2014 as well as this judgment are guidelines to determine the true income of the parties by applying the principles laid down in Sections 106 and 165 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, which cast a duty on the Court to determine the true income of the parties. These directions are necessitated because the parties in the matrimonial litigation do not disclose their true income and the claims of maintenance are dragged as long as upto two years and the Courts, finding it difficult to determine the true income, tend to fix maintenance by drawing presumptions.- 19.22 This Court would like to further clarify that while formulating the affidavit – Annexure A, many more questions and documents were considered, which would have complicated the affidavit and caused inconvenience to the litigants. In order to keep the affidavit concise and precise, this Court incorporated only important questions and documents. However, the Courts are at liberty to direct the parties to disclose further relevant facts and documents if deemed necessary to determine the true income. The Courts are also at liberty to consider Rules and formats of affidavits mentioned in para 18 to develop and further improve the format of the affidavit formulated by this Court.- 20. The Courts below shall send their response to the working of these guidelines and further suggestions by 15th July, 2015, which shall be considered by this Court thereafter.- 21. All the parties in these appeals are directed to file fresh affidavits along with documents in terms of the format provided in Annexure ‘A’ hereto within six weeks. The response to the affidavits of the parties be filed within four weeks thereafter……..24. This Court is of the view that filing of affidavit of assets, income, expenditure and liabilities by both the parties in the prescribed format at the very threshold of matrimonial litigation as in developed countries would enable the Courts to pass maintenance order within 60 days in terms of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore should be incorporated in all the matrimonial statutes. Let this suggestion be considered by the Government. Copy of the order dated 18th September, 2014 and this judgment along with the Annexure A and compilation of the Rules/formats mentioned in Para 18 be sent to Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG for taking up the matter with Ministry of Law and Justice.- 25. Copy of this judgment along with Annexure A be sent to Registrar General of this Court who shall send the same to all Family Courts and other Courts dealing with matrimonial cases. The format of the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure (Annexure A) be loaded in the website of the District Courts/Family Courts to enable the- 26. Copy of the order dated 18th September, 2014 as well as this judgment along with the Annexure A be also sent to the Delhi Judicial Academy to sensitize the judicial officers about the guidelines laid down by this Court.”.
    • Puneet Kaur Versus Inderjit Singh Sawhney, CM(M) 79/2011, Judgment Dated: 12.09.2016, Bench: J.R. Midha, J, Delhi  High Court: Directions passed to the trial Courts as to what kind to Income Affidavit to be procured and considered before passing the Order on maintenance.
    • Rabindra Nath Sahu Versus Susila Sahu, TRPCRL No. 20 of 2016, Judgment Dated: 14.09.2016, Bench: S.K. Sahoo, J, High Court Of Orissa, Cuttack: DV Act- Temporary Residence.
    • Sudha Mishra Vs. Surya Chandra Mishra, RFA No.299 of 2014, Order Dated: 25.07.2014, passed by A K Pathak,J, Delhi High Court- Shared Household U/S-2(s) of D V Act.
    • Sudha Mishra Vs. Surya Chandra Mishra, Special Leave Appeal No. 23519 of 2014, Order dated: 25.02.2015, passed by Madan B Lokur & Uday Umesh Lalit,JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Shared Household U/S-2(s) of D V Act. 

    Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove