An Analytical Study of Judicial Responses to the Misuse of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in India

Introduction

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter PWDVA or the Act) was enacted in India as a landmark civil legislation aimed at providing effective protection to women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and in domestic relationships. Its objectives are undoubtedly laudable, seeking to secure constitutional rights and provide a robust framework for reliefs such as protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, and compensation (SHAURABH KUMAR TRIPATHI v. VIDHI RAWAL, 2025; Kavita Chaudhri v. Eveneet Singh And Anr., 2010). However, over the years of its implementation, concerns have been increasingly voiced, and judicially noted, regarding the misuse of its provisions. This article aims to analyze the phenomenon of misuse of the PWDVA, primarily through the lens of judicial pronouncements from various High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. It will examine the legislative intent, the scope of the Act, and how courts have identified and addressed instances where the Act's protective umbrella has been sought to be used for purposes extraneous to its core objectives.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: Legislative Intent and Scope

The PWDVA was introduced to address the pervasive issue of domestic violence, which often went unaddressed due to gaps in existing civil and criminal laws. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill highlighted the need to provide an alternative avenue for women to insulate themselves from violence without necessarily disintegrating the family or initiating criminal proceedings (ROOP LAL & ORS v. MANPREET KAUR, 2019). The Act covers women who are or have been in a domestic relationship with the abuser, where both parties have lived together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as family members living together as a joint family (Saleem Ahmad v. State Of Up And 2 Others, 2024; PWDVA, Section 2(f)).

Defining "Domestic Violence," "Aggrieved Person," and "Domestic Relationship"

Section 3 of the PWDVA provides an extensive definition of "domestic violence," encompassing physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse (SHAURABH KUMAR TRIPATHI v. VIDHI RAWAL, 2025; Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, Patna High Court, 2013). An "aggrieved person" is defined under Section 2(a) 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 (SANJEEV KUMAR v. SUSHMA DEVI AND ORS, 2023). The Supreme Court in Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury And Another (2015) affirmed that a woman remains an "aggrieved person" even after a decree of judicial separation, as it does not sever the domestic relationship. Similarly, in V.D Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot (2012), the Court held that the Act's protections could extend to acts of domestic violence preceding its enactment if the repercussions continued. The interpretation of "relationship in the nature of marriage" has been subject to judicial scrutiny, with the Supreme Court in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma (2013) laying down criteria, emphasizing that not all live-in relationships would automatically qualify without characteristics akin to a common law marriage.

The term "respondent" was initially defined in Section 2(q) as any "adult male person." However, the Supreme Court in Hiral P. Harsora And Others v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora And Others (2016) struck down the words "adult male" as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, thereby broadening the scope of respondents to include female relatives as well.

Nature of Reliefs and Proceedings

The PWDVA provides for a range of reliefs under Section 12, including protection orders (Section 18), residence orders (Section 19), monetary reliefs (Section 20), custody orders (Section 21), and compensation orders (Section 22). The Act is primarily civil in nature, though it contains penal provisions for breach of protection orders (Section 31) (SHAURABH KUMAR TRIPATHI v. VIDHI RAWAL, 2025; ROOP LAL & ORS v. MANPREET KAUR, 2019). Courts have emphasized that the enactment being beneficial, a liberal interpretation should be adopted to advance parliamentary intention (Kavita Chaudhri v. Eveneet Singh And Anr., 2010; Shambhu Prasad Singh Petitioner v. Manjari, 2012).

Judicial Scrutiny of Misuse: Emerging Trends and Concerns

While the PWDVA is a crucial tool for protecting women, various courts have noted instances of its misuse. This often involves filing complaints with oblique motives, impleading entire families without specific allegations, or attempting to use the Act to settle scores or property disputes.

Vague Allegations and Implication of Relatives

A common form of misuse involves levelling vague and omnibus allegations against all family members of the husband, including distant relatives who may not even reside in the shared household. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Anoop and Ors. v. Vani Shree (2014) observed that it is common for complainants to accuse other family members, including distant relatives, when the primary dispute is between intimate partners. Similarly, in Om Parkash Syngal And Others S v. Shimla Garg (2015), the Court quashed proceedings against relatives living in different districts against whom only vague allegations of connivance were made, noting that the Magistrate had issued notice without examining the existence of a domestic relationship. The Supreme Court in Shyamlal Devda And Others v. Parimala (2020), while upholding jurisdiction, noted the submission that vague allegations were levelled against family members and ultimately quashed proceedings against several appellants due to lack of specific allegations. The Kerala High Court in Rajesh And Another v. Station House Officer And Another (2022) expressed concern over the tendency to falsely implicate relatives through general omnibus allegations, similar to misuse observed under Section 498A IPC, and emphasized the need for Magistrates to scrutinize applications meticulously.

Absence of "Domestic Relationship" or "Shared Household"

The existence of a "domestic relationship" and the concept of a "shared household" are cornerstones of the PWDVA. Misuse occurs when complaints are filed by individuals who do not, or did not, share such a relationship with the respondents. The Delhi High Court in Vijay Verma v. State N.C.T Of Delhi & Anr. (2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 2733) held that an application under Section 12 was a "gross misuse of the Act" where the petitioner had settled in America, established a separate household, and was self-sufficient. The court reasoned that domestic violence, for the purposes of the Act, is violence committed when parties are in a domestic relationship, sharing the same household. It distinguished this from other forms of violence or harassment between separated individuals, which might be punishable under other penal laws but not under the PWDVA. In Kamlesh Devi Petitioner v. Jaipal And Others S (2016), the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the lower courts' findings that the petitioner was not an "aggrieved person" under Section 2(a) and thus not entitled to protection under Section 18 of the Act.

Complaints Filed with Ulterior Motives or After Significant Delay

Courts have been wary of complaints filed after inordinate delays or seemingly with ulterior motives. In HARDEEP KHAN v. RANO (2022), the Punjab & Haryana High Court considered a complaint filed after a gap of more than eight years of separation as a clear misuse of the process of law, also noting the argument that it was time-barred, referencing Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State Of Punjab & Anr. S (2011) regarding the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure's limitation period. The Madras High Court in G. Thanga Elango And Others v. Meena (2019) quashed proceedings where the very domestic relationship was questionable, and the complainant presented a "completely new story" in the PWDVA petition, deeming it an abuse of process of law.

Misuse for Settling Civil Disputes or Post-Divorce Claims

The PWDVA is sometimes invoked to settle civil disputes, particularly those related to property, or to make claims after a valid divorce. The Madras High Court in Rukmani v. Venkatesh (2017 SCC ONLINE MAD 20343) and Rukmani & Others v. Manonmani & Others (2017) found a "classic case of misuse and abuse" where the complainant attempted to settle claims related to a sale agreement by wrongly invoking the PWDVA. The Supreme Court in Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State Of Punjab & Anr. S (2011) held that a divorce decree obtained by mutual consent, even if alleged to be fraudulent, cannot be challenged in criminal proceedings under the PWDVA; such challenges must be made in the appropriate civil forum. Following this, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in LAKHWINDER SINGH AND ORS v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR (2019) quashed a PWDVA complaint filed after a mutual consent divorce, deeming it a "total misuse of the process of law," while clarifying that the right to claim maintenance could be pursued through appropriate remedies.

The Role of the Judiciary in Preventing Misuse

The judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring that the PWDVA serves its intended beneficiaries without becoming an instrument of harassment. This involves careful scrutiny at the initial stages and a willingness to quash proceedings that are manifestly an abuse of process.

Need for Careful Scrutiny by Magistrates

Magistrates are the first line of defence against the misuse of the Act. The Kerala High Court in Rajesh And Another v. Station House Officer And Another (2022) emphasized that Magistrates cannot casually and mechanically issue summons without applying their mind as to whether the complainant is an "aggrieved person" and whether the pleadings disclose a domestic relationship and the occurrence of domestic violence. The Court stressed that applications must be scrutinized meticulously to ensure they fall within the ambit of the PWDVA, lest the Act becomes a tool of harassment. The Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Arul Daniel v. Suganya (2022), cited in Rajesh And Another, held that it is not necessary to issue notice to all parties arrayed as respondents and that the Magistrate must provide reasons for issuing notice to third parties to the matrimonial relationship.

Application of Limitation and Quashing of Frivolous Proceedings

Courts have invoked inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash PWDVA proceedings where they are found to be an abuse of process. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in HARDEEP KHAN v. RANO (2022) considered the issue of limitation, relying on precedents suggesting that applications under the PWDVA should be filed within one year from the date of the incident. The power to quash proceedings is exercised when allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused (Anoop and Ors. v. Vani Shree, 2014, referencing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1991). This power is crucial in preventing the continuation of malicious or unfounded litigation.

Balancing Legislative Intent with the Prevention of Abuse

The PWDVA is a socio-legal statute designed to empower and protect women. Its broad definitions and wide-ranging reliefs are intentional, aiming to provide comprehensive support. However, this very breadth can be exploited. The challenge for the judiciary is to interpret and apply the Act in a manner that upholds its protective intent while simultaneously safeguarding against its misuse. As observed in Kavita Chaudhri v. Eveneet Singh And Anr. (2010) and Shambhu Prasad Singh Petitioner v. Manjari (2012), the Act being beneficial, the court's approach should be to uphold parliamentary intention through liberal interpretation, but this must be tempered with caution to prevent injustice. The objective is not to dilute the Act's efficacy but to ensure its application is just, fair, and directed towards genuine victims of domestic violence.

Conclusion

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, represents a significant advancement in women's rights in India. Its provisions offer crucial support and remedies to those suffering from domestic abuse. However, the instances of its misuse, as recognized and addressed by the Indian judiciary, pose a challenge to its credibility and effectiveness. Courts have demonstrated a growing vigilance in identifying patterns of misuse, such as the impleading of entire families on vague grounds, filing complaints to settle property scores, or initiating proceedings long after separation or divorce without a continuing cause of action. The judicial emphasis on careful scrutiny by Magistrates at the threshold, the application of principles of limitation where appropriate, and the willingness to quash frivolous or malicious proceedings under inherent powers are vital safeguards. Ultimately, preserving the sanctity and efficacy of the PWDVA requires a balanced approach: one that ensures robust protection for genuine victims while deterring and remedying its misuse, thereby ensuring that the Act remains a potent instrument for social justice rather than a tool for harassment.