Subsisting relationship not mandatory for aggrieved woman under DV Act: SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday said an aggrieved woman who is not in a domestic relationship with the inlaws but has shared the household and was subjected to domestic violence is entitled to file an application under Domestic Violence ActA bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna said It is held that there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed visavis allegation of domestic violence However it is not necessary that at the time of filing of an application by an aggrieved person the domestic relationship should be subsistingIt added that in other words even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent in a shared household at the time of filing of an application under Section 12 of the DV Act but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the DV ActThe bench said that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person when she is related by consanguinity marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage adoption or are family members living together as a joint family to actually reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the time of commission of domestic violenceIf a woman has the right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act and such a woman becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence she can seek reliefs under the provisions of DV Act including enforcement of her right to live in a shared household it added in 79page judgmentThe top court held that Section 12 does not make it mandatory for a magistrate to consider a domestic incident report filed by a protection officer or service provider before passing any order under the DV Act It clarified that even in the absence of a domestic incident report a magistrate is empowered to pass both exparte or interim as well as a final order under the provisions of the DV ActThe bench noted that appellant had a right to reside in the shared household as she was in a domestic relationship with her husband till he died in a road accident and had lived together with him therefore she also had a right to reside in the shared household despite the death of her husbandThe aggrieved person continued to have a subsisting domestic relationship owing to her marriage and she being the daughterinlaw had the right to reside in the shared household it addedThe woman after the death of her husband moved a magistrates court seeking protection orders residence orders and compensation orders to be passed under various provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 The court directed the inlaws not to obstruct the aggrieved woman and her daughter from enjoying the property of her husbandThe motherinlaw challenged this order before a sessions court which set aside the trial court order The aggrieved woman moved the Uttarakhand High Court challenging this order but her criminal revision petition was dismissed in 2019 She moved the top court challenging the high court and the sessions court orderThe top court allowed the womans appeal and set aside the high court order and sessions court order and affirmed the trial court orderThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever