Section 2(q) of the PWDVA defines a "respondent" as any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. However, by the proviso to Section 2(q), an aggrieved wife or a woman in a marriage-like relationship can also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or male partner — including female relatives.

Key Case Law: In Sandhya Wankhede v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhede, the Supreme Court settled the issue: the proviso does not exclude female relatives (such as mother-in-law or sister-in-law) from being named as respondents. Complaints are maintainable against female relatives of the husband as well.

Section 2(f) defines "domestic relationship" as a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by:

• Consanguinity (blood relation)
• Marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage
• Adoption
• Are family members living together as a joint family

Importantly, even past cohabitation qualifies — the aggrieved person does not need to currently live with the respondent to file a case.

Section 2(s) defines "shared household" as a household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, either singly or along with the respondent, and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them, or by any person on behalf of either of them, or by both jointly.

The Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020) expanded the scope of shared household significantly — it need not be owned by the husband or his family. A rented home or any home where the couple lived together qualifies as a shared household.

Both deal with cruelty to women in marriage, but they are fundamentally different:

• Section 498-A IPC (now BNS): A criminal provision. It results in arrest, trial, and if convicted, imprisonment of up to 3 years. It is a non-bailable, cognizable offence. It focuses on punishing the accused.
• DV Act (PWDVA 2005): A civil-cum-criminal remedy. It focuses on providing protection and relief to the aggrieved woman — including protection orders, residence rights, monetary compensation, and custody of children. Violation of a DV order can then lead to criminal punishment.

Both cases can be filed simultaneously. A DV case is often faster and more flexible in providing immediate relief.

No. An acquittal or discharge in a Section 498-A case does not bar or nullify a domestic violence case. The two proceedings are independent. The standard of proof, the nature of relief, and the forum are all different. Courts have consistently held that the outcome of one proceeding does not determine the other. The aggrieved woman can continue pursuing her DV case for protection orders and monetary relief even if the 498-A case ends in acquittal.

Yes, they are related but distinct remedies. Section 20 of the PWDVA allows the Magistrate to direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to the aggrieved person. The Magistrate may take into account any maintenance order passed under Section 125 CrPC (now BNSS), and the monetary relief under the DV Act is in addition to and not in lieu of any maintenance order. Courts have held that if a woman is already receiving maintenance under Section 125, the DV court may adjust the amount but cannot deny her the right to seek monetary relief under Section 20.

This is a contested point, but the general legal position is that adultery by itself does not automatically disentitle a woman from monetary relief under the DV Act. Unlike Section 125 CrPC (which has an express bar for unchaste wives in some interpretations), the PWDVA does not contain a comparable express bar. Courts examine the conduct of both parties and the circumstances, but the focus of the DV Act is on protecting the aggrieved woman from violence and ensuring her financial security — particularly when children are involved. Consult our DV lawyers in Delhi to assess your specific situation.

Under Section 17 of the PWDVA, every aggrieved woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in the shared household — regardless of whether she has any title or right in that property. The Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja held that this right extends to any home where she lived with the respondent in a domestic relationship, including homes owned by the in-laws (i.e., not necessarily owned by the husband alone). However, the court has the power under Section 19 to direct arrangements for alternative accommodation of similar standard if eviction of in-laws would be unreasonable.

The PWDVA does not specify an explicit limitation period. However, courts generally apply the principle from the Limitation Act and have held that a complaint should ideally be filed within 1 year of the last act of domestic violence. That said, courts have considerable discretion — if there is a continuing course of conduct or if the aggrieved person was under duress, courts have condoned delays. Importantly, each fresh act of violence creates a new cause of action. It is always advisable to consult a domestic violence lawyer in Delhi as soon as possible after the incident.

A Domestic Incident Report (DIR) is a report prepared by a Protection Officer or a Service Provider in the prescribed format (Form I of the DV Rules). It records the details of the domestic violence incident when an aggrieved person approaches them for assistance. While preparing a DIR is the duty of the Protection Officer upon receiving a complaint, it is not mandatory for the court to insist on a DIR before entertaining a DV application. An aggrieved person can directly file an application before the Magistrate without a DIR. However, a DIR provides evidentiary value and helps in building the case.

Under Section 27 of the PWDVA, the application can be filed before the Magistrate (Metropolitan Magistrate in Delhi) of the area where:

The DV Act expressly protects women who are no longer in an ongoing domestic relationship. Section 2(a) uses the phrase "is or has been" in a domestic relationship. This means a divorced woman, a woman who has left the matrimonial home, or a woman who has separated from a live-in partner can still file a DV case based on acts of violence that occurred during the domestic relationship. There is no requirement that the relationship be subsisting at the time of filing.

This is a nuanced area. The PWDVA protects women who are aggrieved persons in a domestic relationship. A mother-in-law can theoretically claim to be an aggrieved person if she has been subjected to acts of domestic violence (as defined under Sec. 3) by any adult male in the household. However, she cannot file a DV case directly against her daughter-in-law because the Act does not permit a woman (other than in specific circumstances) to use the DV Act against another woman. The appropriate remedy for a mother-in-law against a daughter-in-law may lie under other provisions of law. Our lawyers in Delhi can advise on the best course of action for such complex situations.

Under Section 23 of the PWDVA, the Magistrate has the power to pass ex-parte orders on the basis of an affidavit. The respondent can challenge such ex-parte orders by filing a reply and seeking a hearing. The respondent can also:

• Apply under Section 25(2) to vary, modify, or revoke a protection/residence/custody order if the circumstances change.
• File an appeal under Section 29 against any order of the Magistrate to the Sessions Court within 30 days.
• Challenge the maintainability of the DV application if the requirements of Section 2(a), (f), or (q) are not met.