Domestic Violence Act: All India Annual Digest 2025

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 not warrant such coercive measures unless there is a violation of a protection order. Alisha Berry v. Neelam Berry, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 33Physical 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) 240Protection 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 734Section 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 596When 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 160Allahabad High CourtDV Act | Husband's Relatives Who Don't Even Live In Shared Household Are Implicated In Cases For Harassment: Allahabad HCCase title - Krishnawati Devi And 06 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 53The 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.S.12 DV Act | Mother-In-Law Harassed Or Tortured By Daughter-In-Law Can File Complaint To Magistrate For Relief: Allahabad High CourtCase Title: X & Others v. State Of U.P. And AnotherCase citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 135The 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 CourtBombay HC Orders Woman To Give Voice Sample To Verify Husband's Claim About Extra-Marital Affair, Says Magistrate Has Power Under DV ActCase Title: AAS vs SASCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 189If there is adequate material on record, a person can be compelled to give...

Domestic Violence Act: All India Annual Digest 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Domestic Violence Act: All India Annual Digest 2025

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers