Supreme Court: Application u/s 12 of D.V Act does not require aggrieved person to have a subsisting relationship.

domestic violence abuse women harassment law insider

Sakunjay Vyas

Published on: May, 13, 2022 at 15:21 IST

The Two Judge Bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court overturned an impugned Judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, where-in the criminal revision petition was dismissed, and the judgment of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun was sustained.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that while filling an application under Section 12 of the D.V Act, an aggrieved person doesn’t need to have a subsisting domestic relationship.

The Apex Court stated that the issues at hand were:

(i) Whether the aggrieved person must reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the point of commission of violence?

(ii) Whether there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed?

The Apex Court, while addressing the first issue, stated that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person when she is related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship like marriage, adoption or is family members living together as a joint family to actually reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of the commission of domestic violence.

Under Section 17 of the D.V. Act, a woman who has the right to reside in the shared household can seek relief under the D.V. Act, including the enforcement of her right to live in the shared household if she becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence.

If a woman has the right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the D.V. Act and such a woman becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence, she can seek reliefs under the provisions of D.V. Act including enforcement of her right to live in a shared household”, the Court said.

The Apex Court stated that if a woman in a domestic relationship is an aggrieved person and actually residing in the shared household, she cannot be evicted except under the procedure established by law.

At the same time, a woman in a domestic relationship who is an aggrieved person cannot be excluded from her right to reside in the shared household except under the procedure established by law. If a woman is sought to be evicted or excluded from the shared household, she would be an aggrieved person in which event Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 would apply.

In other words, the expression’ right to reside in the shared household’ is not restricted to only actual residence, as, irrespective of actual residence, a woman in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside in the shared household. Thus, a woman cannot be excluded from the shared household even if she has not actually resided therein that is why the expression ‘shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household’ has been intentionally used in Sub-Section (2) of Section 17.”, the Court said.

The Apex Court further stated that the question raised about a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed must be interpreted broadly and expansively to encompass not only a subsisting domestic relationship in the present but also a past domestic relationship.

The purpose of using the expression ‘domestic relationship’ is to cover both a relationship between two persons who live together in the same household as well as a relationship between two individuals who have lived together in a shared household at any time.

Therefore, the Parliament has intentionally used the expression ‘domestic relationship’ to mean a relationship between two persons who not only live together in the shared household but also between two persons who ‘have at any point of time lived together in a shared household….”, the Court said.

As a result, the Apex Court overturned the impugned Judgment of the High Court Uttarakhand at Nainital by stating that if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.

Edited By: Advocate Ramsha Shaikh, Associate Editor at Law Insider

Related Post