THE REAL TRUTH BEHIND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

This article is written by Manashvi Rawat of 5^th Semester of BBALLB (Hons.) of Shri Ramswaroop Memorial University, Barabanki, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

“Silence in the face of domestic violence only empowers the darkness. It’s time to break the chains of silence, for every voice that speaks out becomes a beacon of hope, lighting the path towards a world where love and respect reign over fear and pain.”

Abstract

Domestic violence can be described as a pattern of behaviour within a relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Numerous actions or threats that have an impact on another person might be considered types of abuse, including physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological ones. These activities could involve scaring, intimidating, terrorizing, manipulating, inflicting harm, humiliating, blaming, injuring, or wounding someone. Domestic violence can affect anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, or gender and can occur in relationships that are married, cohabiting, or dating. It impacts individuals from all socioeconomic and educational backgrounds. Addressing domestic violence requires the combined efforts of law enforcement, social welfare, and healthcare services. Despite efforts in this direction, the cases addressed represent only the tip of the iceberg as the majority of cases go unreported due to societal pressures from family members or the social stigma of defamation. Real change in these cases can only be achieved by changing societal attitudes through education and improved law enforcement. Many countries, including India, have adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination to safeguard women from all forms of violence. India has incorporated many human rights from these documents into its constitution, such as the right to equality, life, freedom of expression, and the right to marry. The state is prohibited from discriminating on the basis of sex, among other things. Violence is a major global issue that infringes upon the human rights of women and can also have a negative impact on their mental health.

KEYWORDS: Domestic abuse, domestic violence, mental health, women’s health

Introduction

Domestic violence, also referred to as domestic abuse, spousal abuse, battering, family violence, or intimate partner violence (IPV), is a pattern of abusive behaviours by one partner towards another within an intimate connection, such as one that exists between a couple, a family, or roommates. Domestic violence can take many forms, including physical aggression or assault (such as hitting, kicking, biting, shoving, restraining, slapping, or throwing objects), threats of physical harm, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, controlling or domineering behaviour, intimidation, stalking, passive or covert abuse (such as neglect), and economic deprivation.

Other various forms of physical violence include:

• Female foeticide and infanticide
• Incest, connivance, and collusion of family members for selfish sexual abuse or rape within marriage
• Abuse of the body, including hitting, grabbing, slapping, or murder
• Overwork, lack of rest, and neglect of healthcare

Domestic violence in India is defined by the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005. According to Section 3 of the Act, any act, omission, commission, or conduct by the respondent constitutes domestic violence if it:

• Harms or threatens to harm the aggrieved person’s health, safety, life, limb, or well-being, whether physical or mental, including by inflicting physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or financial abuse; or
• Harasses, hurts, injures, or puts in danger the person who is being wronged in order to force her or any other relative to comply with any illegitimate demand for dowry, other property, or valuable security; or
• Has the effect of endangering the offended party or any of her family members by engaging in any of the behaviour described in clauses (a) or (b); or
• Otherwise harms the person who is being wronged, either physically or mentally.

In 2005, it was made illegal in Jammu and Kashmir, which has its own laws. In 2010, Jammu and Kashmir enacted the Jammu and Kashmir Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Before the enactment of this pivotal legislation, instances of domestic violence in India fell under the purview of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, limitations became evident in this prior provision. Firstly, it lacked any stipulation for addressing the needs of victims in terms of redressal and reparation. Secondly, Section 498-A exclusively extended its coverage to married women, leaving other victims without recourse. To address these inherent shortcomings, the Indian government introduced the Domestic Violence Act in 2005. This legislative stride was prompted by the need to rectify the deficiencies of Section 498-A. The Domestic Violence Act proffers an array of remedies, encompassing access to safe housing, essential medical care, protective injunctions, and orders for compensation. This comprehensive suite of measures aims to rectify the inadequacies of the preceding legislation and ensure a more encompassing and effective framework for combating domestic violence. In essence, the enactment of the Domestic Violence Act marked a turning point in India’s legal landscape, effectively addressing the shortcomings of Section 498-A and offering a more comprehensive and victim-centred approach to tackling domestic violence.

What constitutes Domestic Violence against women?

As outlined by the Domestic Violence Act, the term “Domestic Violence” pertains to the infliction of harm or injury upon a woman within a domestic relationship. This encompassing definition encompasses a spectrum of abuses, including physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic maltreatment. The ambit of the Domestic Violence Act extends beyond the actual commission of abuse, extending to encompass threats of abuse as well. The statute also takes into account harassment stemming from unlawful dowry demands directed at the woman or her family. Its primary focus is safeguarding wives or female live-in partners from acts of domestic violence perpetrated by husbands or male live-in partners, along with their relatives. Notably, Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act elucidates an “aggrieved person” as any woman who has, at any point, been in a domestic relationship with the alleged perpetrator and asserts to have encountered any form of domestic violence. It’s essential to emphasize that the Domestic Violence Act extends its protection not solely to women currently or formerly in a relationship with the abuser, but also to women who have cohabited in a shared household, sharing bonds through consanguinity, marriage, relationships akin to marriage, or even adoption—encompassing mothers, sisters, and widows within its protective purview.

DATA ANALYSIS

METHOD: Information was collected from the annual reports of the National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB) encompassing four categories of domestic violence-related crimes. These categories include cruelty by a husband or his relatives, dowry-related deaths, abetment to suicide, and cases filed under the Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act. The reported rates for each of these crimes are presented per 100,000 women aged 15 to 49 years, covering data for India and its various states from the years 2001 to 2018. Additionally, details regarding the number of individuals arrested and the legal status of these cases were extracted from the data sources.

RESULTS: In 2018, the reported rate of domestic violence cases involving cruelty by husbands or their relatives in India stood at 28.3 (with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 28.1 to 28.5). This represented a notable increase of 53% since 2001. Across different states in India, the rates exhibited significant variations, ranging from 0.5 (with a 95% confidence interval between -0.05 and 1.5) to 113.7 (with a 95% confidence interval between 111.6 and 115.8) in 2018. For the same year, the reported rates of dowry-related deaths and abetment to suicide in India were 2.0 (with a 95% confidence interval of 2.0) and 1.4 (with a 95% confidence interval of 1.4), respectively. Notably, certain states played a pivotal role in driving the temporal variations in these rates, while most states witnessed stagnation in reporting over the years.

The reporting system employed by the National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB) led to underreporting in specific categories of domestic violence-related crimes. Over the period under consideration, the average number of individuals arrested for these offenses had declined. Alarmingly, only a mere 6.8% of the cases reached completion in trials, and convictions were secured in merely 15.5% of the cases in 2018.The data from NCRB, although available, are presented in highly tabulated formats, which restrict their utility for effective intervention planning. Moreover, the absence of individual-level data in the public domain poses limitations on the exploration of domestic violence patterns, which could otherwise offer valuable insights to inform policy measures aimed at addressing domestic violence.

The most recent report from The National Family Health Survey (NFHS), a comprehensive and multi-round survey conducted in Indian households, has revealed distressing statistics. It indicates that 29.3% of married Indian women aged 18-49 years have encountered instances of domestic or sexual violence. Additionally, it highlights that 3.1% of pregnant women in the same age group have been subjected to physical violence during any of their pregnancies.

It’s important to note that these figures represent only the reported cases by women, and there is a significant underreporting of such incidents, with a substantial number of cases going unreported to the authorities.

Varieties of Domestic Violence against women encompass a spectrum of forms, ranging from physical, sexual, and verbal to emotional and economic abuses.

Physical Abuse: The most glaring manifestation of domestic violence is physical abuse against women. Within the framework of the Domestic Violence Act, physical abuse encapsulates actions leading to bodily pain, jeopardizing life, limb, health, or the victim’s overall development. This category includes acts such as assault, criminal force, and criminal intimidation.

Sexual Abuse: Sexual abuse directed at women takes the form of sexual or reproductive coercion. Notably, the concept of marital rape should ideally fall within the domain of sexual abuse. However, it’s pertinent to note that marital rape remains unprohibited unless the wife is below the age of 15. According to the Domestic Violence Act, sexual abuse encompasses any sexually oriented act that “abuses, humiliates, degrades, or otherwise violates the dignity of a woman.”

Verbal and Emotional Abuse: Verbal abuse entails remarks or threats hurled within the realm of domestic violence against women. This often cascades into emotional abuse, a prevalent form of domestic violence from a human rights perspective. The convergence of verbal and emotional abuse generates psychological abuse, gradually eroding a woman’s self-worth and emotional wellbeing.

Economic Abuse: An impactful inclusion within the spectrum of abuses outlined by the Domestic Violence Act is economic abuse. This category signifies an attempt to deprive the victim and her children of financial resources and assets, often through threats or actions. This recognition of economic abuse represents a noteworthy stride taken by the government to encompass the broader impact of domestic violence on a woman’s financial independence and security.

Factors contributing to domestic violence

• Socio-Economic Factors: Domestic violence often finds its origins in socio-economic disparities. Financial stress, unemployment, and lack of access to resources can lead to frustration and tension within households, increasing the likelihood of violent outbursts. An analysis of statistical data indicates a correlation between regions with higher poverty rates and increased rates of domestic violence incidents.
• Psychological Dynamics: The psychological factors underlying domestic violence are intricate. Individuals with a history of trauma, substance abuse, or mental health disorders may resort to violence as a maladaptive coping mechanism.
• Power and Control: Domestic violence is often rooted in power imbalances within relationships. Dominance and control become driving factors for the perpetrator, leading to various forms of abuse. Research demonstrates that education and awareness surrounding healthy relationship dynamics can play a pivotal role in dismantling these power structures and reducing the prevalence of domestic violence.
• Cultural Norms and Gender Stereotypes: Cultural norms and gender stereotypes contribute significantly to the perpetuation of domestic violence. Societies that normalize aggressive behaviours or enforce rigid gender roles may inadvertently foster an environment conducive to abusive relationships. An exploration of cross-cultural studies underscores the importance of challenging these norms to eradicate domestic violence at its core.
• Lack of Education and Awareness: Insufficient knowledge about the consequences of domestic violence and available support services can hinder prevention efforts. Educating individuals about their rights, available resources, and the detrimental effects of violence is essential. Data analysis reveals that regions with comprehensive awareness campaigns experience a decrease in domestic violence incidents.

Widespread prevalence of domestic violence in India

• Commonly cited rationales include low self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy, unresolved childhood conflicts, financial limitations, hostility towards women, personality disorders, genetic predispositions, socio-cultural influences, misunderstandings, substance misuse, mental health disorders, peer pressure, and familial pressures as contributing factors for perpetrators of domestic violence.
• A predominant underlying factor frequently identified is the perpetrator’s drive to assert dominance over women. Abusers seek or fabricate justifications to establish their supremacy, resorting to force or verbal degradation. This compulsion to control women finds its roots in the patriarchal, feudal, and hierarchical structure inherent in Indian society. This society harbours deeply ingrained bias against women, perpetuating the view of women as inferior entities subjected to male authority. Conforming to societal norms, “good” women are expected to endure and sacrifice, while those who display happiness, assertiveness, dissent, or independence are stigmatized as “bad.” The societal construct of “good” women being willing to endure preserves family honor, thus discouraging reporting of domestic violence to avert dishonour. Furthermore, the prevailing gender inequality further solidifies the belief in men’s superiority and entitlement to guide and discipline women.
• The frailty of the law enforcement situation intensifies women’s dependency on male relatives. Fear of external violence compels women to tolerate abuse within their homes. Exposure to incidents of rape and molestation, commonplace in public spaces in India, compounds their fear of violence outside and thus women endure domestic violence as a “lesser evil.”
• A significant number of women are economically and socially reliant on their oppressors. Apprehensions of losing custody of their children and their homes deter women from seeking legal recourse. The fear of jeopardizing their social and economic standing restrains them from resisting domestic violence.
• The atmosphere within courts, often marked by hostility and intimidation, coupled with prolonged delays, stringent procedural complexities, and judges’ biased or unfavourable interpretations of laws deter women from seeking legal recourse. The implementation of social laws is riddled with inefficiencies, leading to protracted court proceedings that are emotionally and financially draining. These apprehensions contribute to women’s hesitance in engaging in legal battles.
• The concept of human rights is relatively nascent in Indian society, and women’s issues are not universally recognized as human rights concerns. Gendered socialization perpetuates the notion of inequality, teaching men and women to believe in women’s subordinate role and their obligation to sacrifice for male relatives. This societal lens views women as something less than fully human, leading to the non-acceptance of their rights and the principles of gender equality. Furthermore, women themselves often lack awareness regarding their rights and the protective legal frameworks, rendering them unable to effectively utilize these provisions.
• For many women, a romanticized notion of marriage prevails until they enter into it. The aspiration for a prince charming who will provide for their needs shapes their expectations. Prior to marriage, girls are often encouraged to suppress their desires for materialistic comforts, being told that marriage will fulfill their wishes. This cultural conditioning influences young women to perceive marriage as an avenue to escape economic realities or the challenges of unemployment prevalent in the country. Consequently, when confronted with domestic violence, they struggle to assert their autonomy, especially if familial support is lacking, often leading to enduring abusive relationships due to perceived lack of alternatives.

Indian domestic violence laws and the Supreme Court

All legislations pertaining to domestic violence, whether associated with dowry or not, are applicable exclusively to members within the family. The first legal measure aimed at prohibiting dowry, albeit not its linked violence, is the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961. A dowry is defined as “property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties”, according to Section 2 of this legislation. While the Dowry Prohibition Act encompasses multiple provisions, Sections 3 and 4 are most frequently cited within legal proceedings, particularly by the Supreme Court.

Section 3 delineates penalties, encompassing imprisonment and fines, for individuals involved in the offering, acceptance, or facilitation of dowry. This specification is further elaborated in Section 4. In accordance with Section 4, any person who directly or indirectly demands dowry from the parents, relatives, or guardians of either the bride or the bridegroom shall face repercussions. The penalty for such an offense includes imprisonment spanning a minimum of six months to a maximum of two years, accompanied by a fine ranging up to ten thousand rupees. Despite the introduction of the 1961 Act, little progress was made in reforming the practice of dowry. Interestingly, no cases were registered until the latter part of the 1970s. This lack of enforcement stemmed from the fact that both the families offering dowry and those receiving it were subject to punishment under the legal provisions. With the intention of reinforcing the 1961 law, two additional sections, 498A in 1983 and 304B in 1986, were incorporated into the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Section 498A recognized cruelty inflicted upon a wife by her husband or his relatives as a cognizable, non-bailable offense. This marked a significant shift, as while dowry had long been regarded as a societal ill, it was not until the 1980s that harassment stemming from dowry-related issues was acknowledged as a form of domestic violence. Section 498A specifies that a husband or his relatives subjecting a woman to cruelty would face punishment of imprisonment for up to three years along with the imposition of a fine. Notably, this section hinges on the definition of “cruelty.” It encompasses deliberate behavior likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause severe injury or risk to her life, well-being, or health (whether mental or physical). Additionally, it includes instances of harassment aimed at coercing the woman or anyone connected to her into meeting unlawful demands for property or valuable assets, or due to their failure to fulfill such demands.

Introduced in 1986 within the IPC, Section 304B established the category of “dowry deaths.” In situations where a woman’s death occurred under suspicious circumstances within seven years of marriage, the husband and his relatives could face prosecution if it could be proven that they had subjected her to cruelty or harassment under the pretext of dowry. Acknowledging the challenge of obtaining circumstantial evidence in cases of familial murders, this law transfers the burden of proof to the husband or his family. If evidence of dowry harassment coincides with the occurrence of an unnatural death, encompassing suicides, the law designates it as a dowry death, thus holding the perpetrator accountable for the woman’s demise. However, it’s essential to acknowledge that domestic violence isn’t confined solely to dowry-related issues. As a result of dedicated advocacy by the women’s movement in India, legislation tailored to address domestic violence specifically emerged—the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) in 2005 (Palriwala, 2009; Suneetha and Nagaraj, 2005). This landmark law rectified various gaps in the existing legal framework (Lawyers Collective, 2012).

The PWDVA encompasses an inclusive definition of domestic violence, encompassing physical, emotional, sexual, verbal, and economic abuse. It not only offers women protection from further violence but also asserts their entitlement to maintenance, the right to their marital residence, and custody of their children, transcending the mere punitive aspect (Suneetha and Nagaraj, 2005). Whereas Sections 498A and 304B is centered on administering justice by penalizing offenders, the PWDVA, being a civil law, serves to safeguard women from subsequent instances of violence.

LANDMARK DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES IN INDIA

• Lalita Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand, (2018):

In the case of Lalita Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2018), the Supreme Court of India deliberated upon a matter involving the Complainant and the State of Jharkhand. The Complainant, who was not legally married to the Respondent, approached the Court seeking maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This approach was prompted by the belief that she might not be eligible for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The case revolved around the Appellant’s involvement in a live-in relationship, resulting in the birth of a child. Following their separation, the Appellant appealed to the Gumla Family Court for support from her partner. The Family Court granted her a monthly maintenance of Rs 2000 and allocated Rs 1000 for the child. Dissatisfied, the Appellant escalated the matter to the High Court, which overturned the Family Court’s decision, ruling in favor of the partner. Undeterred, the Appellant then approached the Supreme Court to seek resolution.

ISSUE: Is it possible for a partner in a live-in relationship to pursue maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act of 2005 in India?

JUDGMENT GIVEN BY COURT: In a landmark decision, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising the then-Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices U.U. Lalit and K.M. Joseph, made a significant observation. They stated that a live-in partner could be entitled to even more extensive relief than what is outlined in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Bench emphasized that under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, the petitioner in the case had the legal recourse to seek maintenance, even if she wasn’t the legally wedded wife and therefore not covered by the obligations outlined in Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Furthermore, the Court underscored that domestic violence, as defined by the Domestic Violence Act, encompasses economic abuse as well.

• Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik, (1986)

In the case involving Sunita Malik as the Complainant and Inder Raj Malik as the Respondent, the two were previously married. However, Sunita Malik endured severe mistreatment, including physical abuse, starvation, and cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws, with a specific focus on mistreatment during festivals. On one distressing occasion, she suffered such severe physical and mental torment in her marital home that she fainted, yet no medical assistance was sought for her.

Furthermore, Sunita Malik was subjected to threats of violence, including death and kidnapping, by her mother and brother-in-law, who demanded that she coerce her parents into selling their property in Hauz Qazi. Consequently, it became evident that Sunita Malik had endured cruelty and physical abuse perpetrated by her husband and in-laws. Her harassment was aimed at compelling her or anyone connected to her to comply with an unlawful demand related to both movable and immovable property.

ISSUE:

• Do Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1908, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, fall under the purview of Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution, which prohibits double jeopardy?
•  Additionally, is Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1908, considered ultra vires?

JUDGMENT GIVEN BY COURT: In this specific case, the Delhi High Court was tasked with determining whether an individual could face convictions. The Indian Penal Code’s Section 498A and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act both prohibit the practice. The Court ruled that it is permissible to convict an individual under both Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1956, and Section 498A of the IPC without violating the principle of double jeopardy.

The Court elucidated that Section 498A of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act serve distinct purposes. Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act deals with the mere demand of dowry and imposes penalties for such actions, while Section 498A of the IPC pertains to acts of cruelty committed against newly wedded women, leading to criminal liability. Consequently, it was established that a person can be prosecuted under both Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

• Ajay Kumar v. Lata @ Sharuti, (2019)

In this case, the Appellant, Lata, is the sister-in-law of the Respondent, specifically his deceased brother’s widow. They previously cohabited in a Hindu Joint Family Property. As per the lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court, it appears that there are no provisions within the Act mandating the Appellant to provide maintenance to his deceased brother’s wife. The obligation to provide maintenance would arise primarily if they had been engaged in a business partnership.

Section 12(1) of the Domestic Violence Act stipulates that an individual may approach a magistrate to seek relief or financial assistance to compensate for losses suffered by herself or her child due to domestic violence. However, it’s noteworthy that this provision does not encompass orders for maintenance issued under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other legal statute. The lady in question contends that after her husband’s demise, she was forcibly ousted from her matrimonial residence along with her child and is now without any means of sustenance for herself and her child.

ISSUE: Whether brother-in-law comes under the definition of “Respondent” under Section 2(q) of the DV Act?

JUDGMENT GIVEN BY COURT: In this case, the Supreme Court rendered a verdict that, according to the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005, maintenance can also be granted to a widow by her brother-in-law. The Supreme Court dismissed the Appellant’s argument that Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act defines “Respondent” as an adult male who is or has been living with the person seeking redress after being wronged. The Supreme Court established a domestic connection between the woman and her brother-in-law, asserting that they shared a joint family arrangement.

• Kamlesh Devi v. Jaipal and Ors., (2019)

In this case, the petitioner, Kamlesh Devi, asserted that she and the Respondents are part of the same family and have been cohabiting on the same premises for an extended period. Kamlesh Devi’s husband is a former BSF officer, and they have three children – Urmila, Anusaya, and Gaytri. Anusaya and Gaytri, both unmarried, attend Krishna Nagar College for their education. The Respondents, known for their quarrelsome nature, formed a group and, whenever Anusaya and Gaytri went to their college, namely Jaipal, Krishan Kumar, and Sandeep, would follow them, subjecting them to taunts and engaging in obscene behavior. Sube Singh, Kamlesh Devi’s husband, lodged a complaint with the Sarpanch of Village Gaud against the Respondents, resulting in a written apology from the Respondents on August 5, 2008, in the presence of respected village members. However, this truce was short-lived as the Respondents resumed their objectionable conduct. With no other recourse for protection from domestic abuse, Kamlesh Devi filed the formal complaint.

After a thorough review of the provisions of the Act, the Trial Court determined that none of the witnesses on record could establish the fact that the Respondents and the petitioner shared a common household or that the Respondents had committed domestic violence against them. The trial court also concluded that no violence of any kind had been reported within the premises of the shared family home. Consequently, the case was dismissed by the Ld. Magistrate, and an appeal filed with the High Court met with a similar fate, resulting in its rejection.

ISSUE: Is there legal liability on the part of the Respondents for acts of domestic violence?

JUDGMENT GIVEN BY COURT: The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court’s determination was accurate in finding a total absence of domestic violence elements in this case. Notably, the petitioner and the Respondents do not share the same dwelling. The allegations of familial connection among the Respondents are vague and unsubstantiated. There is no evidence of any conflict or altercation between the Respondents and the petitioner; they appear to be more akin to neighbors than closely related family members. As a result, the special leave petition was denied.

• Bibi Parwana Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (2017)

In this particular case, a woman lost her life due to a gruesome act of setting her on fire, allegedly perpetrated by her husband and his family. Subsequently, legal proceedings were initiated against the husband and his family members, resulting in convictions at both the district court and the High Court levels. Following these convictions, the victim’s sister-in-law and brother-in-law filed an appeal to contest the verdict before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Did the Appellants share a common intention with the perpetrator of the crime?

JUDGMENT GIVEN BY COURT: Following a comprehensive examination of the case and a thorough review of the available evidence, the bench reached the determination that both the lower courts had erred in their legal assessment concerning the charge under Section 304B read in conjunction with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as applied to the present Appellants. The presented information does not substantiate, beyond reasonable doubt, any complicity on the part of the current Appellants, who are the deceased’s sister-in-law and brother-in-law, in subjecting the victim to mistreatment in connection with alleged dowry demands. Similarly, there is insufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that the Appellants shared any common intention with the deceased’s spouse in the commission of the crime.

Furthermore, it is evident from the documented evidence that they resided in a separate village prior to these events, reinforcing the lack of a substantial connection to the alleged crime.

• Hiralal P. Harsora and Ors v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors, (2016)

In this case, the plaintiffs, Pushpa Narottam Harsora and her daughter Kusum Narottam Harsora, initiated legal proceedings against Pradeep (son/brother), his wife, and her two sisters, alleging instances of domestic abuse perpetrated against them. The Respondents, in their defense, requested the Metropolitan Magistrate to exempt Pradeep’s wife and two sisters/daughters from the complaint, citing Section 2(q), which specifies that a complaint can only be filed against an “adult male.” However, the Magistrate rejected the Respondents’ application. The Bombay High Court, in its ruling, interpreted Section 2(q) of the aforementioned Act in conjunction with the definitions outlined in Sections 2(a), 2(f), and 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. This interpretation ensured that a complaint could encompass female family members along with the “adult male member.” However, it was clarified that a complaint alleging domestic abuse cannot primarily target the female members of the household; there must be an adult male co-Respondent. Consequently, the Court did not alter the term “adult male person.” Following this, the mother and daughter duo filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Is it possible for females to be held accountable under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act of 2005? 

JUDGMENT GIVEN BY COURT: The Supreme Court invalidated the inclusion of “adult male” within the scope of ‘Respondent,’ asserting that it lacked a reasonable connection with the intended objective. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court clarified that the Domestic Violence Act allows women and non-adult individuals to seek redress. The term “Respondent” in Section 2(q), pertaining to those who can be considered perpetrators of violence against women or against whom remedies under the DV Act are applicable, should not be confined solely to the phrase “adult male person” as per Section 2(q). Consequently, remedies under the DV Act are accessible even when the alleged perpetrators include female members and non-adult individuals.

Who to report domestic violence case 

• In accordance with the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, any woman who has suffered harm or distress, or anyone who has witnessed such an act, possesses the right to approach the nearest Police Station, a designated Protection Officer, or a Service Provider for assistance. The court has the authority to appoint a Protection Officer who is entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the court’s directives. This designated role of a Protection Officer serves as a vital bridge between victims of domestic violence and the legal system, facilitating effective communication and support.
• Alternatively, one can directly file a complaint with the magistrate to seek orders for reliefs outlined in the Domestic Violence Act. Individuals who provide pertinent information about the committed offense to relevant authorities are exempted from any potential civil or criminal liability.
• Following the lodging of a complaint, the court is mandated to convene a hearing within a span of three days from the filing date. Upon establishing the authenticity of the complaint, the court issues a protection order designed to ensure the safety and well-being of the aggrieved party.

Additionally, an option exists to file a complaint under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which identifies the offense of matrimonial cruelty and prescribes corresponding criminal penalties.

Revealing the Real Reason

While no single factor can fully explain the occurrence of domestic violence, the amalgamation of socio-economic disparities, psychological struggles, power dynamics, cultural norms, and lack of education collectively contribute to this issue. Addressing domestic violence requires a holistic approach that involves legal reforms, socio-economic interventions, psychological support, and cultural transformation.

Conclusion

Domestic violence is a complex issue with deep-seated causes that extend beyond mere individual actions. By acknowledging the multifaceted nature of this problem, societies can work towards creating comprehensive solutions that foster healthy relationships, equality, and awareness. Through collaborative efforts and targeted interventions, we can begin to unravel the true reasons behind domestic violence and pave the way for a safer and more just future.

References

• What is Domestic Violence? What are its types, causes, and effects? Myadvo, available athttps://www.myadvo.in/blog/domestic-violence-against-women, last seen on 28/08/2023
• Domestic violence in India, Wikipedia, available at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_India, last seen on 28/08/2023
• Domestic Violence Against Women in India, LexForti Legal, available at https://lexforti.com/legal-news/domestic-violence-against-women-in-india/, last seen on 28/08/2023
• Domestic violence: The dark truth of our society, Research Gate, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287939259_Domestic_violence_The_dark_truth_of_our_society, last seen on 28/08/2023
• Domestic violence in Indian women: lessons from nearly 20 years of surveillance, BMC Women’s Health, available at https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-022-01703-3, last seen on 28/08/2023
• Domestic Violence Laws in India | Penalty & Punishment, Lawyered, available at https://www.lawyered.in/legal-disrupt/articles/laws-domestic-violence-india-advocate-tushar-vashi/, last seen on 28/08/2023
• Domestic Violence in India, INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH ON WOMEN, available at https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Domestic-Violence-in-India-1-Summary-Report-of-Three-Studies.pdf, last seen on 28/08/2023
• Domestic Violence: A Case Study of Women from Meerut in India
• , American International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, available at https://aijhss.cgrd.org/images/Vol1No1/6.pdf, last seen on 28/08/2023
• Domestic Violence Against Women: Understanding Social Processes and Women’s Experiences, Research Gate, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227871895_Domestic_Violence_Against_Women_Understanding_Social_Processes_and_Women%27s_Experiences, last seen on 28/08/2023
• Gender, Domestic Violence, and Patterns of Conviction: Analysis of India’s Supreme Court Rulings, Research Gate, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282954398_Gender_Domestic_Violence_and_Patterns_of_Conviction_Analysis_of_India%27s_Supreme_Court_Rulings, last seen on 28/08/2023