Rights Of Women Under Domestic Violence Act

Coverage of this Article

Key Takeaways

-The scope of the term “joint family” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and how is it different from that under the Hindu Law.

Introduction

-Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is a crucial law, as it helps to protect women from the violence that she faces in the place where she lives. It includes the right of women against physical and mental ill-treatment. 

PRABHA TYAGI v. KAMLESH DEVI [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2022]

-A woman after the death of her husband filed an application before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her father-in-law and mother-in-law to seek residence order in the property of her late husband, return of the streedhan, etc. 

Hindu “Joint Family”under Hindu Law

-In a Hindu joint family, there exists a common ancestor and all of his lineal male descendants upto any generation,all together with the wives and the unmarried daughters of the common ancestor and the lineal male descendants.

Conclusion

-The condition of women in India has not improved much even today.

Key Takeaways

• The scope of the term “joint family” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and how is it different from that under the Hindu Law.
• The scope of Sections 12 and 17 of the said Act and the ambit of expression “domestic relation”, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
• In what manner the rights of women are thus, protected by the expanded interpretation of provisions of the Act by the Apex Court.

Introduction

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is a crucial law, as it helps to protect women from the violence that she faces in the place where she lives. It includes the right of women against physical and mental ill-treatment. The Act was primarily meant for the protection of wives or female live-in partners, but it also extends to the sisters, widows, or mothers. The Act also covers the physical and mental harassment of women for the dowry demands. It provides women the right to secure housing, as in India, most of the women are not either literate enough or financially independent to live separately. The Courts can also issue Protection Orders so that the abuser cannot harass a woman by any acts at her workplaceand a breach of suchprotection order is a non-bailable offense. The Act also proposes the appointment of Protection Officers and NGOs.

PRABHA TYAGI v. KAMLESH DEVI [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2022]

Facts of the Case

A woman after the death of her husband filed an application before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her father-in-law and mother-in-law to seek residence order in the property of her late husband, return of the streedhan, etc. The Magistrate granted some of the reliefs but the Hon’ble Uttarakhand High Court ruled that in order to establish the fact that violence has been committed by the respondents as per the Domestic Violence Act, it was mandatory that the aggrieved person shared the household with the respondents and the domestic relationship existed between the parties. Hence, in an appeal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court explained the scope of Sections 12 and 17 of the DV Act. Also, it provided the expanded version of the expressions - “domestic relationship” and “joint family”.

Hindu “Joint Family”under Hindu Law

In a Hindu joint family, there exists a common ancestor and all of his lineal male descendants upto any generation,all together with the wives and the unmarried daughters of the common ancestor and the lineal male descendants. It is to be noted that the existence of the common ancestor is important for bringing a joint family into existence, however, for its continuance; a common ancestor is not a necessity. So, the death of the common ancestor does not mean that the joint family will come to an end. Also, even an illegitimate son is a member of his father's joint family. A Hindu joint family is a unit and it is represented by its ‘Karta’, who is the head of the family. It confers status on its members which can be acquired only by birth in the family or by marriage to a male member.

In the aforementioned case, the expression “joint family” as per Section 2 (f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was expanded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Section 2 (f) of the DV Act states that: “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.

A Bench comprising Justice MR Shah and BV Nagarathna held that the expression “joint family” means “persons living together jointly as a family” and not as what is perceived under the Hindu Law. Therefore, it would include those persons as well who are living together as a joint family such as the foster children who live with other members who are related by consanguinity, marriage, or by adoption.

The Hon’ble Court also held that the existence of a domestic relationship at the time of filing the application under Section 12 of the said Act was not mandatory. If the aggrieved person, at any point of time had lived or had the right to live and had been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, can file an application under Section 12 of the Act.The Apex court interpreted that the term “domestic relationship” used in the Act means the relationship between the two persons who not only live together in a shared household but also have lived together at any point in time. Also, the Magistrate was not obligated to consider a Domestic Incident Report before passing an order under the aforementioned Section. He can pass the ex-parte or final order even in the absence of the Report.

The Hon’ble Court went on further to say that a woman in a domestic relationship could seek to enforce her right to reside in a shared household, even though she has resided there or not, she can enforce her right under Section 17 (1) of the Act and hence, the expression “shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent” has intentionally been mentioned under Section 17 (2) of the DV Act. If she is resisted or excluded from the shared household by the respondents then she will be aggrieved, therefore, Section 17 (2) would apply in such a case.

Conclusion

The condition of women in India has not improved much even today. Not only the illiterate ones but also the well-educated population practice the act of violence against women, be it their sisters, wives, mothers, daughters-in-law, etc. The mental and physical harassment that a woman has to go through, for various reasons like dowry or due to the orthodox mindsets of the people, adversely affects her mental and physical conditions which prove to be devastating for the overall well-being of her child and her whole family as well. As it is said that if a woman is educated the whole family is educated, similarly, a woman’s physical, mental and social well-being is extremely important for a family and a society at large. The only way to achieve this is through the education of women and awareness regarding their legal and fundamental rights.