Supreme CourtExtradition Order Quashed - The Trial Court's order directing extradition of the appellant (husband) residing in the USA, due to his non-appearance, was held untenable, especially given the illegal impoundment of his passport. (Para 20) Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 240Issuance of bailable warrant - Proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi-criminal and do...
Supreme Court
Extradition Order Quashed - The Trial Court's order directing extradition of the appellant (husband) residing in the USA, due to his non-appearance, was held untenable, especially given the illegal impoundment of his passport. (Para 20) Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 240
Issuance of bailable warrant - Proceedings under the D.V. Act are quasi-criminal and do not warrant such coercive measures unless there is a violation of a protection order. Alisha Berry v. Neelam Berry, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 33
Physical Presence in DV Act Proceedings - Proceedings under the DV Act are quasi-criminal in nature and do not mandate the personal presence of a party, except in cases of breach of a protection order under Section 31. (Para 18, 20) Vishal Shah v. Monalisha Gupta, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 240
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Power of High Courts to quash complaints under Section 12(1) or orders under Sections 18 to 23 using inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) - Held, High Courts can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to quash proceedings under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, or orders under Sections 18 to 23, to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. The notion that Section 482 CrPC is inapplicable due to the predominantly civil nature of DV Act proceedings is incorrect. However, High Courts must exercise caution and restraint, intervening only in cases of patent illegality or abuse of process, given the DV Act's purpose as welfare legislation to protect women from domestic violence. A cautious approach is recommended to avoid undermining the Act's objectives. The civil nature of DV Act proceedings does not preclude the application of Section 482 CrPC. (Paras 37, 39) Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 599 : AIR 2025 SC 2598 : 2025 INSC 734
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Judicial Consistency - stare decisis - Inconsistent judicial decisions by co-ordinate benches of the High Court in a domestic violence case, leading to quashing of proceedings against the husband while allowing prosecution against in-laws, undermining judicial consistency and public trust. Held: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing a domestic violence case against the husband, emphasizing that co-ordinate benches must adhere to stare decisis or provide reasoned distinctions for departing from prior rulings. The High Court's failure to reference an earlier decision refusing to quash proceedings against co-accused in-laws created an illogical inconsistency, fostering sharp practices like forum shopping and eroding public trust in the judiciary. The impugned order was deemed arbitrary, infracting judicial propriety, and the criminal proceedings against the husband were revived. (Para 11, 13, 17) Renuka v. State of Karnataka, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 593 : 2025 INSC 596
When family relations are sought to be brought under criminal proceedings, courts should be cautious. Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 168 : AIR 2025 SC 1578 : 2025 INSC 160
Allahabad High Court
Case title - Krishnawati Devi And 06 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53
The Allahabad High Court observed that in many cases, to harass the husband's family or the person in a domestic relationship, the aggrieved party implicates relatives who have never lived with them in the shared household.
A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Deshwal added that while issuing notice under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the courts must look into whether the person who is being implicated is living or ever lived with the aggrieved person in a shared household.
Case Title: X & Others v. State Of U.P. And Another
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 135
The Allahabad High Court has held that a mother-in-law can file a case against her daughter-in-law or any other person, as being harassed or tortured would bring her under the purview of aggrieved person under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act.
Justice Alok Mathur in his order held:
“In case, mother-in-law is harassed or physically or mentally tortured by the daughter-in-law or any other member of the family, certainly she could be brought within the fold of aggrieved person and would have a right to maintain the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”
Bombay High Court
Case Title: AAS vs SAS
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 189
If there is adequate material on record, a person can be compelled to give voice samples, even in Domestic Violence cases, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court recently held while allowing a husband's appeal seeking a direction to his wife to provide her voice sample so as to prove her 'extra-marital' affair. Single-judge Justice Shailesh Brahme order a woman to provide her voice specimens within a period of three weeks so that the same could be verified.
Case Title: Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 262
A flat under construction, though registered jointly in the name of the spouses, cannot be termed a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV) 2005 and thus, a husband cannot be directed to pay instalments of such a flat, held the Bombay High Court recently. Justice Manjusha Deshpande noted that the flat in question was still under construction and that the couple has not resided in the same yet.
Case Title: ARP vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 282
The Bombay High Court recently while quashing a section 498A IPC case against a family observed that marital discords have now-a-days become a menace in the society and that because of the two persons fighting over petty issues, the concept of marriage, which is 'sacrosanct' for Hindus is suffering a setback. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Mahendra Nerlikar noted the 'trend' of women filing FIR against as many relatives of the husband as possible and said thus there is a need to look at matrimonial discord matters from a 'different' angle.
Case Title: Ashish Chandrakant Chauhan vs Mohini Mukesh Chauhan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 381
The Bombay High Court has held that preventing a woman from residing in her shared household amounts to domestic violence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court emphasised that the right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Act exists irrespective of any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.
Case Title: Srinwati Mukherji vs State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 262
A flat under construction, though registered jointly in the name of the spouses, cannot be termed a 'shared household' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV) 2005 and thus, a husband cannot be directed to pay instalments of such a flat, held the Bombay High Court recently. Justice Manjusha Deshpande noted that the flat in question was still under construction and that the couple has not resided in the same yet.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Husband Can't Compel Wife To Share Mobile Or Bank Passwords: Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: CM v. NG
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 67
The Chhattisgarh High Court has observed that a husband cannot compel his wife to share private information, communications, personal belongings and even passwords of mobile phones and bank accounts.
The Bench of Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey also observed that any such compulsion by the husband shall amount to infringement of privacy and would also potentially lead to invocation of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV).
“Marriage does not grant the husband automatic access to the wife's private information, communications and personal belongings. The husband cannot compel the wife to share her passwords of the cellphone or bank account and such an act would amount to a violation of privacy and potentially domestic violence. There should be a balance between marital privacy and the need for transparency and at the same time trust in the relationship.”
Delhi High Court
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 31
The Delhi High Court has held that two persons who lived together in a shared household through a relationship in the “nature of marriage” would also be called to be in a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act.
“Even otherwise, in terms of Section 2 (f) of the Act, the relationship of parties living together through a relationship in the “nature of marriage” would also fall within the definition of domestic relationship,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 34
The Delhi High Court has observed that an order for interim maintenance can be granted merely upon the satisfaction of the Court that the application by the wife prima facie disclosed the commission of domestic violence.
“While the veracity of the case of the wife would be tested during the course of trial, interim relief can be granted merely upon the satisfaction that the application by the wife prima facie disclosed the commission of domestic violence,” Justice Amit Mahajan said.
Case title: SQN LDR PRABHAKAR BHATT vs. MAJ. ANNU LAMBA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 251
The Delhi High Court has observed that a woman's claim seeking right to shared household under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 is valid even in the absence of domestic violence.
Case title: SJ v. AJ
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 937
The Delhi High Court has held that a married woman's right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act cannot override or nullify the lawful entitlement of husband to seek partition or enforcement of ownership rights in civil proceedings.
A division bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar thus dismissed a divorced woman's appeal against Family Court judgment declaring her and her former husband are entitled to 50% each in the suit property.
Title: A v. B
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1005
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman has no right to residence under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act after the marriage is dissolved by way of a divorce unless a contrary statutory right is shown to exist.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1405
The Delhi High Court has observed that when the residential rights of a daughter in law have been protected under the Domestic Violence Act, the right of senior citizens, being the in-laws, to live in their house without distress cannot be suspended indefinitely.
Title: SAHIBA SODHI v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1706
The Delhi High Court has said that a wife not being entitled to monetary maintenance due to concealment of her income does not disentitle her to a residence order under the Domestic Violence Act.
Title: CCL 'K' v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 263
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the trial proceedings of a child alleged to be in conflict with law and an adult offender cannot be held jointly after a preliminary assessment of Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is done declaring the child in conflict with law to be psychologically and physically mature.
Title: MEENU AGRAWAL v. BHARAT GOEL
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 291
The Delhi High Court has said that while dealing with matrimonial matters, family courts must adopt an approach which is different from ordinary civil proceedings.
Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1016
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a woman's right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act cannot act as a sword to create proprietary rights.
Case title: Social Action Forum For Manav Adhikar & Anr. v. State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1779
The Delhi High Court has held that a victim has no right to seek certified copy of an order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board acquitting the accused, since no appeal lies from such orders.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title Smti Likha Nap & Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Gau) 67
The Gauhati High Court quashed an order passed by appellate authority under Arunachal Pradesh government's land management department which had cancelled a land possession certificate issued to a husband, based on alleged violation of interim order by the trial court in favour of his estranged wife under domestic violence act.
In doing so the court observed that the appellate authority lacked the jurisdiction to pass such an order, and any order lacking jurisdiction is null and void.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Title: Bharti Rathore v/s State of HP & others
The Himachal Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, held that Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act only deals with penalty for breach of protection orders (to protect women from acts of violence) and not with other orders such as maintenance (to provide financial support), compensation (for compensation of injuries) or residence (for providing shelter) orders.
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case Title: Naveed Bashir Wani Vs Varqa Bashir & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 264
In a pivotal ruling on the rights of women under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) is not mandatory for a Magistrate to grant interim or ex parte relief under the statute.
“Under Section 20 of the D.V. Act, an aggrieved wife is entitled to monetary relief, including maintenance, to ensure that she does not suffer from deprivation or financial distress”, Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul emphasized.
Justice Koul made this observation In a petition filed by one Naveed Bashir Wani, who had challenged concurrent orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal and Additional Sessions Judge, Ganderbal awarding interim monetary relief to his estranged wife.
Case-Title: Peerzada Muneer Ahmad vs Aaliya Anjum
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 270
The Jammu & Kashmir High court held that a Magistrate is empowered to drop proceedings or revoke interim orders issued under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) if, upon hearing the respondent and examining the record, it is found that no case is made out.
A bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar, while disposing of a petition challenging DV proceedings, observed that “Since the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act are not, in strict sense, criminal in nature, the bar to alter/revoke an order by a Magistrate is not attracted to these proceedings.”
The petitioner had argued that the impugned proceedings were an abuse of process of law, claiming that the respondent-wife had resorted to DV proceedings only after failing to obtain maintenance under Section 125 CrPC.
The Court clarified that such DV proceedings cannot be equated with lodging a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution. Instead, it emphasized that a Magistrate retains discretion to reconsider and revoke his earlier orders based on the reply filed by the other side.
Case Title: MUBASHIR AHMAD WANI Vs MEELAZ MUBASHIR & ANOTHER
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 291
Affirming the expansive protective scope of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a woman aggrieved by domestic violence is entitled to seek residence or other reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act in any legal proceeding including enforcement proceedings under Section 488(3) of the J&K CrPC (Pari Materia with Sec 125 CrPC) by invoking Section 26 of the Act.
Justice Sanjay Dhar underscored that the phrase “legal proceedings” under Section 26 must be liberally interpreted in line with the beneficial intent of the statute.
“The expression 'legal proceedings' has to be given a liberal interpretation so as to achieve the objective of the DV Act which is to protect the rights of the women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family,” observed Justice Dhar while setting aside the trial magistrate's rejection of a DV Act application filed by a wife and minor daughter during maintenance enforcement proceedings.
Case Title: Tilak Raj vs Darshana Devi
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that the bar of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 514 of BNSS, 2023) is not applicable to applications filed under Sections 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
These sections under the DV Act entitle the aggrieved women to claim reliefs such as protection orders, residence orders etc or interim or ex-parte reliefs.
The Court, however, clarified that the limitation provisions apply only to penal proceedings for breach of protection orders under Section 31 of the DV Act.
Case Title: Rizwan Yousuf Qazi Vs Shaziya Shah
Holding that coercive processes like arrest warrants have no place in proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act unless a distinct offence under the Act is alleged, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that once a respondent has been duly served with summons but fails to appear, the Magistrate is empowered only to proceed ex parte and cannot resort to warrants for securing his presence.
Justice Sanjay Dhar made it clear that “the only course open to the Magistrate is to proceed ex parte… and not to issue warrants,” while quashing the non-bailable warrant issued by the trial court.
Case Title: Reyaz Ahmad Lone & Ors. v. Naziya Hassan & Anr.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are not to be equated with the filing of a criminal complaint or initiation of prosecution.
The High Court explained that once the trial Magistrate obtains a response from the husband or his relatives, he is empowered to revoke the issuance of summons or drop proceedings if he finds that parties have been unnecessarily arrayed.
The Court was hearing a petition challenging proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the DV Act and certain interim monetary reliefs granted by the trial Magistrate in favour of the aggrieved persons. The petitioners contended that the allegations were vague and that relatives of the husband had been wrongly implicated without a basis.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: Fathima v Vappinu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
The Kerala High Court ruled that amending an original petition filed before the Family Court incorporating reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is permissible and that it will not change the nature and character of the original petition.
The Court further stated that reliefs to be claimed under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act can also be granted by the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act to provide protection and justice to the victim.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha allowed the petition for amendment filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act.
Case Title: Omana Thomas v Ajith Prakash and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 285
The Kerala High Court held that the pendency of a civil suit concerning the title on a property is not a bar on giving an order under Section 19(1)(b) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) to direct the alleged aggressor to remove himself from the shared household.
Justice C. Jayachandran ordered thus in a challenge against the Sessions Court order which refused to affirm the Magistrate's order granting relief under Section 19(1)(b) saying that it would render the pending civil suit infructuous.
The Court observed that the consideration for the civil suit and a suit under DV Act are both different and therefore relief cannot be refused on the ground that a civil suit was pending. The Court said that the purpose of a direction to remove the person from shared household is to ensure that the aggrieved person is not subjected to any further domestic violence. The Court held that if the court is satisfied that the victim is a woman who was subjected to domestic violence and there was a domestic relationship between the victim and aggressor, the relief under DV Act can be granted.
Wife Has Right To Live In Shared Household Even After Husband's Death: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Chenthamara @ Kannan and Others v Meena and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
The Kerala High Court has held that a wife cannot be ousted from her matrimonial home even after the death of her husband.
The decision delivered by Justice M.B. Snehalatha underscores the right of a woman to live in a shared household, ensuring her safety and dignity despite familial opposition.
Case Title: Xx v XX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 324
The Kerala High Court observed that it was not unusual for a wife to close criminal cases filed by her against her husband to save him. The Court said that a wife does so in the expectation that her husband would change.
The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha observed that a woman will forgive to protect her family.
Case Title: Titus v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a petition seeking exercise of inherent powers to set aside an interim order passed under Section 12(1) the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act/DV Act) is not maintainable if the same does not suffer from any blatant irregularity or illegality.
Justice G. Girish observed that as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, High Courts must exercise restraint in exercising inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Case title: Sajudheen & Ors v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
While considering a cruelty case lodged against a husband and his kin, the Kerala High Court observed that sole evidence of a domestic violence victim is reliable for conviction in such cases as often ill-treatment and harassment happens within the confines of the house.
Justice Jobin Sebastian underscored that the testimony can be relied on as sole evidence for conviction provided it is convincing and reliable. In the facts of the present case, the high court acquitted the husband, kin in a Section 498-A IPC case, holding that the main allegation of forced abortion was not proved and that other allegations remained unsubstantiated.