Domestic Violence

Recent development on Domestic Violence

Recently the Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma[1] held that daughters have equal coparcenary rights. In the footprints of this judgment, came the judgement of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja[2]which secured the rights of women in general and particular;y in divorce cases. The judgement was pronounced on 15-10-2020 by a bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah. The Supreme Court also quoted that domestic violence in the country is rampant, and several women in the country face violence in some form or the other every day.

The court while providing residential rights to women fighting divorce cases against their husband held that they could not be dispossessed from the marital household on the ground that the husbands do not wholly or partly own the property. The Supreme Court while pronouncing this judgement overruled 2006 judgment of SR Batra vs Smt Taruna Batra[3].

Facts of the Case

  • A matrimonial dispute arose between Raveen Ahuja and Sneha Ahuja. Satish Chandra, who is the father-in-law of Sneha and also the appellant in this case, had purchased house no. D-1077 in Friends Colony, New Delhi. Appellant’s wife, son (Raveen) and daughter-in-law (Sneha) were living in the said Premises.
  • The father-in-law and his wife resided on the Ground Floor, and his son and daughter-in-law resided on the First Floor of the Premises.
  • Later appellant’s son moved out of the first floor and started staying in the guest room of the ground floor and filed a Divorce Petition on 28.11.2014 under Section 13 (1) (ia) and (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty.
  • Subsequent to this Sneha filed an application under Sec 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 alleging that she had been subjected to severe emotional and mental abuse.

Proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate 

The Magistrate directed the appellant, his wife and his son to neither alienate Sneha from the shared household nor dispossess her from the said house until further orders.

Proceedings before the Trial Court

  • Aggrieved by the order, Satish Chandra filed a Suit in the Trial Court against Sneha seeking her removal from the premises in order to lead a peaceful life. He further pleads that the complaint was not true and was file with bad intentions because Raveen already file a Divorce Petition. It was further allege that the in-laws, have also subjected to violence by Sneha on many occasions.
  • The Magistrate’s Order was further challenged on the ground that Satish being the Father-in-Law is not responsible for maintaining Sneha during the lifetime of her husband.
  • The Trial Court on 08-04-2019 passed an order whereby the Daughter-in-Law, i.e. Sneha, asked to vacate the physical possession of the premises.

Proceedings before the Delhi High Court

  • Sneha filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court who reverted the matter to the Trial Court for proper adjudication.
  • The High Court observe since the matter was pending before domestic violence Magistrate. The Trial Court’s Order which direct Sneha to vacate the house. In a situation where she allegedly made to face domestic violence, would cause serious prejudice against her.
  • “The High Court further reiterate that persons affect by domestic violence should have a right to reside in a shared household, irrespective of the fact whether or not they are the owner of the shared household, as long as they can prove that they had endured domestic violence while being in a domestic relationship with the owner of such premises. The court further held that under Section 19 (1) (f) of the 2005 Act Sneha should given an alternate accommodation till the time her matrimonial relationship subsists.”

Proceedings before the Supreme Court

  • The Supreme Court observed that the aim of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Was to secure the rights of aggrieved persons in a domestic relationship in a shared household.
  • Domestic relationships would not just mean the relationships between a husband and a wife. It would also include relationships arising out of adoption, consanguinityetc as enumerated in Section 2 (f) of the D.V Act.
  • In the given case it was beyond doubt that Raveen and Sneha were in a domestic relationship. They were husband and wife and thus were cover under the Section 2 (f).
  • The next discussion that the court took up was to see if Raveen and Sneha were living in a shared household. Section 2 (s) of the D.V Act enumerates as to what constitutes as a shared household.
  • The court held that the right of occupation of matrimonial home. Which was earlier not part of any statutory law in India, recognized in the D.V Act of 2005. The court referred to the judgement Attavar vs. Neelam Manmohan Attavar[4] wherein the Supreme Court held that the Act was intended to give an entitlement in favor of the women with regards to the right of residence under the shared household irrespective of her having any legal interests in the same.
  • The court observed that even if the house belong to her father-in-law. And Raveen had no share in the house belongings. But Sneha living in the first floor of the house since her marriage in a domestic relationship.

The Court finally said that a wife is entitle to claim the right to residence in a shared household. Belonging to either the husband or the relatives of the husband where he stays during the divorce proceedings.


[1] CIVIL APPEAL NO.32601 of 2018

[2]CIVIL APPEAL NO.2483 of 2020

[3]Appeal (Civil) 5837 of 2006 

[4] (2017) 8 SCC 550.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence

Raise your voice through writing.

Draft from home. Private. Personal. Secure. Easy to understand legal drafts. Don’t worry about the format & legal procedure. Learn the basics with Frequently Asked Questions.

Get The Free Resources​

Search, find, download and edit the draft, free. Or call us for expert service. Choose to get it delivered at your location with or without stamp papers.

  • All

  • Category1

  • Category2

  • Category3


Domestic Violence (Letter for Amendments)

Domestic Violence 2 (letter of complaint)

Domestic Violence 3

Domestic Violence 4

Domestic Violence 5

List Of Documents Required

Frequent questions, quickly answered.

Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 states that what constitutes domestic violence according to which domestic violence shall include: –

  • Threats to health, safety, life etc, whether mental or physical, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or
  • Harassmentthrough any forms such as harms, injuries to the aggrieved person by coercing her or any other person related to any unlawful demand for dowry or other property or valuable security; or
  • Otherwise injuring or causing harm, through physical or mental means to the aggrieved person.

In the present day scenario, complaint can be filed against any adult male member. Who is in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against. Whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act including the other family members such as mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law etc. or any relative of the husband or male partner.

According to Bombay High Court

But in a recent judgement of 2010 in the case of Kusum Lata Sharma vs State & Anr. The Bombay High court held that a sister cannot file a complaint against her brother’s wife, or her own sister. A mother-in-law if subjected to domestic violence by daughter-in-law cannot file a case against her daughter-in-law.

However she can file a complaint case against her son mentioning the name of the daughter-in-law as the agent of her son.

  • There are various regulations or provisions being made for protection of women against domestic violence under the statute such as Sec.304B of IPC pertaining to dowry death.
  • Under section 313-316 of IPC female infanticide has been made punishable which means forcefully terminating the pregnancy of a women.
  • Other sections of IPC dealing with these issues are section 305-306 related to abetment of suicide and 340,349 of IPC respectively wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint.
  • A complaint can also be filed under section 498A of IPC for cruelty which also falls under domestic violence.

Yes, domestic violence can be said to be gender neutral in India. Because according to the research and studies it is clear that the number of men and women who commit violence toward each other is equal with respect to the analysis of these studies. But apart from this it has also been found out that women are more likely to report act of violence then men in India.

The reason for the violence both in men and women are different. As men turn into violent when they feel a sense of powerlessness such as when they are not able to overcome what they want. And women turn violent when they are frustrated or do not get their spouse’s attention.


Hence it can be said that men and women are both the victims of domestic violence and hence an inclusive approach must be taken to help families resolve conflict.

  • Call 100 or 1091(women emergency helpline number) and report it to the concerned authority.
  • If possible write down the police report or incident number and keep with your records.
  • One can seek medical attention if required.
  • One can move to domestic violence shelter as stated under section 6 of protection of women from Domestic Violence act, 2005.
  • Seek the support of caring people on whom you have trust or who would keep your privacy such as a friend, a family member, a neighbour etc. So that they could act as a witness in your bad times.
  • One should have the safety plan to protect herself from daily violence.
  • File for protection order as stated under section 18 of Domestic Violence act so that the abuser can stay away from you.
  • Women NGO’S should try to investigate the case properly without any biasness toward women and must try to discourage women not to file any complaint against the in-laws just for trivial matters.
  • Family counselling centres must be established across the country to help harassed men and his family members so that their side of the story should also be put in front of the government.
  • Definition of mental cruelty under section 498A should be elaborated so that there may be provisions for men also to file a case of mental cruelty against his wife.
  • To reduce the misuse of this section, civil authorities must be appointed to investigate the case first and then cognizance must be taken.
  • Section 498A must be made bailable as due to its non-bailable nature, old parents, children and other family members also suffer without any fault.
  • Penalty must be charged against false accusations made by the wife against the husband.

Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act defines “aggrieved person” as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.

Domestic Violence Act

The Domestic Violence Act not only covers those women who are or have been in a relationship with the abuser. But it also covers those women who have lived together in a shared household[1] and are related by consanguinity, marriage of through a relationship in the nature of marriage  or   adoption .

Even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single women, or living in any other relationship with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the Domestic Violence Act.

The term shared household is defined under the Domestic Violence Act as a household. The person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person. And the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent. Both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household[2].

Definition of ‘shared household’

In the case of S.R. Batra   & Another Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra[3], the Supreme Court with reference to definition of shared household under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act. It stated that the definition of ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting requires to be interpreted in a sensible manner.

A wider meaning to an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act was conferred by the Supreme Court in the case of D. Veluswamy v. D. Patchaiammal, wherein the Court enumerated five ingredients of a live in relationship as follows:

  • Both the parties must behave as husband and wife and are recognized as husband and wife in front of society
  • They must be of a valid legal age of marriage
  • They should qualify to enter into marriage eg. None of the partner should have a souse living at the time of entering into relationship.
  • They must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time
  • They must have lived together in a shared household
Observation Supreme Court

The Supreme Court also observed that not all live-­in­-relationships   will   amount   to   a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of Domestic Violence Act. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned above shall be fulfilled and this has to be proved by evidence.

Status of a Keep- The Court in the case further stated that if a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or a servant it would not be a relationship in the nature of marriage.


In this case, the Court also referred to the term “palimony” which means grant of maintenance to a woman who has lived for a substantial period of time with a man without marrying and is then deserted by him.

Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act

It defines “respondent” as any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.

In view of the definition of the term respondent covering adult male person, the judiciary has time and again been confronted with the argument that an aggrieved person can file complain under the Domestic Violence Act against an adult male person only and not against the female relatives of the husband i.e. mother-in-law, sister-in-law.


However, the Supreme Court in the case of Sandhya Wankhede vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wnakhede[6]  put ot rest the issue by holding that the proviso to Section 2(q) does not exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, complaints are not just maintainable against the adult male person but also the female relative of such adult male.

No, transfer of shares is an internal process that only gets recorded in minutes, and no further filing of the form with ROC is required.
In case of part of shares being transferred, certificate needs to be cancelled & fresh share certificates with split in shares will be required to be executed.
The seller and buyer can negotiate the price if the shares are sold freely. The shareholder’s agreement or company’s article of association may have specific details about the valuation of the shares.