Behind Closed Doors: Domestic Violence And The Law's Ongoing Battle In India

The law is not silent on this issue. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) was enacted to provide immediate civil remedies to women facing abuse. It recognizes that violence is not limited to physical assault. It includes emotional, verbal, sexual, and economic abuse. However, the gap between law and implementation has remained a serious concern.

Recently, the Supreme Court of India, while dealing with the matter of We the Women of India v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1156/2021, directed States and Union Territories to ensure proper implementation of the Domestic Violence Act. The Court expressed concern that many regions had failed to appoint sufficient Protection Officers, the very officials meant to assist victims in filing complaints, accessing shelter homes, and securing protection orders. The Court emphasized that a law cannot remain effective only on paper; it must function at the ground level. This direction was not about creating new law, but about making the existing one actually work.

This recent development reminds us that domestic violence is not merely a social problem — it is a legal issue demanding institutional accountability.

Recognition of Live-In Relationships: Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2018)

In Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court examined whether a woman in a live-in relationship could claim maintenance and relief under the PWDVA. The absence of a legally valid marriage was central to the dispute.

The Court held that women in relationships “in the nature of marriage” are entitled to protection and maintenance under the Act. The judgment aligned statutory interpretation with social reality. It clarified that vulnerability to abuse does not depend on formal marital status.

This decision reinforced that the PWDVA is remedial legislation and must be interpreted liberally to advance its protective purpose. By extending relief to women in non-traditional domestic arrangements, the Court closed a significant protection gap.

Parallel Remedies and Strategic Litigation Under the PWDVA

Domestic violence litigation in India rarely exists in isolation. Proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are frequently accompanied by criminal complaints under BNS, maintenance petitions under BNSS divorce proceedings under personal laws, and, in some cases, civil suits concerning property or residence rights.

Courts have consistently treated remedies under the PWDVA as independent and supplementary in nature. The Act does not replace criminal prosecution; nor does it depend upon the outcome of matrimonial litigation. Its framework is designed to provide immediate civil protection such as restraining orders, residence security, and monetary relief without requiring a full-fledged criminal trial as a precondition.

This layered legal strategy reflects the structural complexity of domestic abuse. Survivors often require urgent protection and financial stability alongside longer-term adjudication of matrimonial disputes. The PWDVA's architecture acknowledges this need for speed and accessibility, distinguishing it from traditional adversarial proceedings that may take years to conclude.

Expanding the Scope of Respondents: Hiralal P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (2016)

One of the most significant interpretative developments occurred in Hiralal P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora.

Originally, Section 2(q) of the PWDVA limited the definition of “respondent” to an “adult male person.” This restriction created procedural hurdles, particularly where abuse was alleged against female relatives.

The Supreme Court struck down the words “adult male” as unconstitutional. The Court held that restricting liability on the basis of gender was inconsistent with the object of the Act. Consequently, complaints can now be filed against any adult member of a shared household, irrespective of gender.

This ruling strengthened the enforceability of the Act and removed an artificial statutory limitation that had diluted its practical reach.

Administrative Deficiencies: The Continuing Weak Link

Despite judicial clarification on substantive issues, implementation remains uneven.

In We the Women of India v. Union of India, the Supreme Court noted serious deficiencies in the appointment and functioning of Protection Officers across States and Union Territories. The Court directed authorities to:

• Appoint adequate Protection Officers
• Notify shelter homes and service providers
• Ensure dissemination of information about legal remedies
• Facilitate access to free legal aid

The Court's intervention highlights a systemic gap: remedial laws can protect victims only when they are backed by an effective administrative system. Without trained protection officers and a lack of coordination among police and support services, victims often struggle to obtain relief. These gaps create barriers at the very outset, causing delay, confusion, and discouragement, and defeating the very purpose of the law.

The implementation deficit is not doctrinal; it is institutional.

Civil Remedies and Preventive Jurisprudence

A distinctive feature of the PWDVA is its preventive orientation. Protection orders under Section 18 and residence orders under Section 19 are intended to restrain further abuse and secure housing stability.

Courts have repeatedly emphasized that eviction of an aggrieved woman from the shared household cannot be used as a tactic of coercion. The Act ensures that a woman's right to residence does not depend upon ownership rights.

This civil dimension differentiates PWDVA from traditional penal approaches. It recognizes that immediate protection and financial stability are often more urgent than criminal conviction.

The Way Forward: Institutional Accountability

Two decades after its enactment, the PWDVA stands as one of India's most progressive social welfare statutes. Judicial interpretation has expanded its reach, clarified ambiguities, and corrected restrictive readings.

However, three areas demand focused attention:

1. Uniform appointment and monitoring of Protection Officers.

2. Standardized training for law enforcement and Magistrates.

3. Strengthening coordination between legal aid authorities and district administrations.

The Supreme Court's recent directions signal renewed judicial engagement with enforcement failures. Yet sustained compliance will depend on executive commitment.

Domestic violence jurisprudence in India has evolved through deliberate judicial expansion. Lalita Toppo recognized live-in relationships. Hiralal P. Harsora removed gender-based limitations on respondents. Most recently, We the Women of India v. Union of India has emphasized implementation accountability.

The trajectory of the law is clear: broader protection, inclusive interpretation, and institutional responsibility.

The next phase is not about redefining rights. It is about ensuring that those rights are accessible, enforceable, and effective at the district level.

For a statute rooted in protection and dignity, enforcement is not a procedural detail. It is the substance of justice itself.

Author; Preeti Singh is an Advocate and Partner at PS Law Advocates & Solicitors, having Offices in Delhi and Mumbai . Views are personal.