5 Important Judgments On Aggrieved Persons Under Section 2 (A) Of The DV Act

Coverage of this Article

Key Takeaways

-For a woman to be called an ‘aggrieved person’ under DV Act, she must be in a domestic relationship (as defined under section 2 (f) of the said Act) and she must have suffered domestic violence.

Introduction

The term ‘aggrieved person’ has been defined under section 2 (a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DV Act’). 

Judgments on Aggrieved Persons

1. M. Palani v. Meenakshi [2008 SCC Online Mad 150]

-The revision petition, in this case, was filed against the order of the Family Court, which had directed the petitioner to provide maintenance to the respondent in an application filed under section 20 read with Section 26 of the DV Act.

2. Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury [(2016) 2 SCC 705]

-This appeal was filed against the order of the High Court of Tripura, denying the appellant the right to get her stridhan back from her husband.

3. Robarto Neiddu v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 4666/2021]

-This petition was filed against the order of the lower court rejecting the application of the petitioner for rejection of the complaint filed by the Respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act against him.

4. Surendran v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2009 KLT 3 967]

-In this case, the marriage of respondent with the petitioner was declared null & void, by contending that the petitioner was impotent and that he had suppressed this fact of impotency at the time of marriage.After getting the annulment, the respondentfiled a complaint under section 12 of the DV Act. So, the petitioner approached the High Court u/s 482, CrPC, for getting the aforesaid complaint quashed, contending that a respondent is no longer an aggrieved person u/s 2 (a) of the DV Act since she got her marriage annulled.

5. Angshuman Chakraborty v. Arpita Banerjee [2015 SCC ONLINE CAL 7120]

-In this case, the primary contention put forward by the Petitioner (in a petition filed under section 482, CrPC for getting a judgment under DV Act set aside) was that the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife had never lived together in a shared household.

Conclusion

-As pointed out by various Courts around the country, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is welfare legislation, aimed at benefiting the women who are victims of Domestic Violence.

Key Takeaways

• For a woman to be called an ‘aggrieved person’ under DV Act, she must be in a domestic relationship (as defined under section 2 (f) of the said Act) and she must have suffered domestic violence.
• There is a distinction between the decree for divorce and the decree of judicial separation. A married woman does not cease to be an aggrieved person if a decree of judicial separation has been passed.
• Any woman including a foreign citizen, who is subjected to domestic violence, can maintain an application before the trial court under the DV Act.
• A woman cannot be regarded as an aggrieved person under section 2 (a) of the DV Act if she has got her marriage declared null & void.

Introduction

The term ‘aggrieved person’ has been defined under section 2 (a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘DV Act’). This section states that the term‘aggrieved person’ means a woman who is in or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and the respondent has subjected her to domestic violence. So,for a woman to be called an ‘aggrieved person’ under DV Act, she must be in a domestic relationship (as defined under section 2 (f) of the said Act) and she must have suffered domestic violence.The domestic relationship could be based on marriage, consanguinity, live-in relationship, adoption, or joint family. However, the persons in a domestic relationship must have lived together in a shared household at any point in time.

Judgments on Aggrieved Persons

1. M. Palani v. Meenakshi [2008 SCC Online Mad 150]

The revision petition, in this case, was filed against the order of the Family Court, which had directed the petitioner to provide maintenance to the respondent in an application filed under section 20 read with Section 26 of the DV Act. The petitioner argued that the respondent is not entitled to any maintenance from him because they have not lived together at any point in time and hence there never existed a ‘domestic relationship’ between them. So, the respondent cannot be called an ‘aggrieved person’ under Section 2 (a) of the DV Act and she, therefore, cannot file an application seeking maintenance. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that there was a close conjugal relationship between the parties and hence, the petitioner is liable to maintain her.

The Court observed that Section 2 (f) of the DV Act, does not specify that the parties must have lived together for any particular period of time. The DV Act does not state that the petitioner and the respondent must have lived together even for a few days.

The court noted that the pleadings of the parties made it clear that the Petitioner and the Respondent had a close relationship and had sex. So, it inferred that the two parties must have lived together at least at the time of having sex. Based on this reasoning, the court rejected the petitioner’s argument that he did not live together with the respondent at any point in time.Ultimately, the Revision Petition was dismissed and the order of the Family court, regarding maintenance to the Respondent, was confirmed by the Madras High Court.

2. Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury [(2016) 2 SCC 705]

This appeal was filed against the order of the High Court of Tripura, denying the appellant the right to get her stridhan back from her husband. The lower courts had held that the Appellant could not file an application under Section 12 of the DV Act after a decree of Judicial Separation had been passed by a competent court. The reasoning taken by them was that the Wife ceases to be an ‘aggrieved person’ after the passing of the decree of Judicial Separation.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the view taken by lower courts and held that the status of the parties did not become different due to a decree of judicial separation. There is a distinction between the decree for divorce and the decree of judicial separation. So, the finding of the lower courts, that the parties having been judicially separated, the appellant had ceased to be an aggrieved person, is “wholly unsustainable”.Based on these observations, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the lower courts.

3. Robarto Neiddu v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 4666/2021]

This petition was filed against the order of the lower court rejecting the application of the petitioner for rejection of the complaint filed by the Respondent under Section 12 of the DV Act against him. The primary contention of the petitioner was that the aforesaid application was not maintainable because the parties were not Indian citizens, so the DV Act had no jurisdiction over them. It was argued that the Respondent was not an ‘aggrieved person’ u/s 2 (a) of the DV Act.

The court, while rejecting these contentions, noted that from the definition of an ‘aggrieved person’ under Section 2 (a), it could be inferred that any woman including a foreign citizen, who is subjected to domestic violence, can maintain an application before the trial court under the DV Act. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court observed that a plain reading of the DV Act revealed that the protection of that Act could also be extended to persons who temporarily reside in India but are covered by the definition of an aggrieved person. So, the court dismissed the appeal and held it to be “bereft of merit”.

4. Surendran v. State of Kerala & Ors. [2009 KLT 3 967]

In this case, the marriage of respondent with the petitioner was declared null & void, by contending that the petitioner was impotent and that he had suppressed this fact of impotency at the time of marriage.After getting the annulment, the respondentfiled a complaint under section 12 of the DV Act. So, the petitioner approached the High Court u/s 482, CrPC, for getting the aforesaid complaint quashed, contending that a respondent is no longer an aggrieved person u/s 2 (a) of the DV Act since she got her marriage annulled.

The court concurred with the arguments of the petitioner and observed that the respondent cannot be an aggrieved person u/s 2 (a) of the DV Act, as she has gotten her marriage with the petitioner declared null & void. So, the respondent was not entitled to claim any benefit under the DV Act. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint filed by the Respondent under section 12 of the DV Act.

5. Angshuman Chakraborty v. Arpita Banerjee [2015 SCC ONLINE CAL 7120]

In this case, the primary contention put forward by the Petitioner (in a petition filed under section 482, CrPC for getting a judgment under DV Act set aside) was that the petitioner-husband and respondent-wife had never lived together in a shared household. So, there was never a domestic relationship between the parties and hence, the respondent could not be said to be an ‘aggrieved person’ u/s 2 (a) of the DV Act for the grant of any benefit under the said Act. The respondent countered the arguments of the petitioner by stating, that even if the parties had never lived together, still the wife has a right to live in the shared household, and hence, the wife will have a domestic relationship with the husband. So, she must be regarded as an ‘aggrieved person’ under the DV Act.

After hearing the arguments from both sides, the court observed that the ‘literal interpretation’ of Section 2 (f) of the DV Act would not further and fulfill the object of welfare legislation like the DV Act. So, ‘liberal interpretation must be given to this Section to ensure that the benefit of this beneficial legislation would reach the distressed women who are unable to live in the ‘shared household’ due to abusive treatment by the husband. Therefore, the court held that the wife who had the right to live with the husband in the shared household due to the existence of her marital tie would be deemed to have a domestic relationship with the husband. Hence, such a wife would be considered to be an ‘aggrieved person’ under section 2 (a) of the DV Act.

Conclusion

As pointed out by various Courts around the country, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is welfare legislation, aimed at benefiting the women who are victims of Domestic Violence. So, the Judiciary has given a liberal interpretation to the definition of an ‘aggrieved person’ under section2 (a) of the DV Act, to ensure that the said Act has the maximum scope for providing relief to the victims.The scope of the definition of an ‘aggrieved person’is particularly important because only an aggrieved person can file an application/complaint under the DV Act.

Click HERE to learn the practical aspect of DV Act.