Thoughtful Advocacy Assists Court in Granting Relief under DV Act in Past Relationships

Srinagar, December 16, 2024: The 4th Additional Sessions Judge in Srinagar has upheld the trial court’s interim order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act), affirming that the Act’s provisions apply to past domestic relationships where instances of violence have occurred. The judgment came in response to an appeal against the trial court’s directive requiring the appellant to provide accommodation or rental support of Rs. 4,000 per month to the respondents.

The appeal raised key questions about the applicability of the D.V. Act, particularly its relevance to relationships that have ceased to exist. The appellant argued that since the parties had been living separately for over a decade, the respondent was no longer an “aggrieved person” entitled to protection under the Act. The court, however, rejected this contention, stating that the D.V. Act extends to past relationships and provides remedies for violence experienced during the course of such relationships.

The court noted that domestic violence is not bound by time constraints and highlighted that the Act aims to provide relief to vulnerable individuals irrespective of when the abuse occurred. It emphasized that past incidents of abuse, as well as unmet obligations, including accommodation and basic maintenance, remain actionable under the Act.

Upholding the trial court’s order, the Sessions Judge reiterated the wide powers granted to magistrates under Section 23(2) of the D.V. Act to issue interim reliefs during the pendency of proceedings. In this case, the magistrate had exercised discretion to provide the respondent with either access to the shared household or alternative accommodation, ensuring her immediate safety and dignity.

The court also clarified that relief granted under the D.V. Act is distinct from maintenance awarded under Section 125 Cr.P.C. While the respondent had already been granted monthly maintenance of Rs. 11,000 in earlier proceedings, this did not negate her right to seek additional remedies for residential support under the D.V. Act.

Arzaan Dar, representing the respondents, played a pivotal role in defending the trial court’s order. Highlighting the persistent financial and emotional hardships faced by his clients, Dar successfully argued that the D.V. Act is not restricted to ongoing relationships but is a remedial statute designed to address the full scope of domestic violence, including past abuses. His advocacy underscored the importance of providing comprehensive relief to individuals seeking protection under the Act.

Dar also addressed the appellant’s objections about the purported misuse of the Act, pointing out that the evidence supported the respondent’s claims of violence and neglect. The court acknowledged these arguments, affirming the trial court’s findings and dismissing the appeal.

This judgment reinforces the principle that relief under the D.V. Act is not confined to current domestic relationships. By validating interim reliefs in such cases, it expands the scope of protection available to individuals who have faced violence or abuse in the past. It also clarifies that interim orders can coexist with prior maintenance awards, ensuring that aggrieved individuals are not left without adequate remedies.

The case has significant implications for the interpretation of the D.V. Act, particularly in recognizing the enduring impact of domestic violence and the need for judicial systems to offer timely and comprehensive relief.

DOWNLOAD JUDGEMENT