This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) 2005. It discusses the following key points: 1) The case involved a wife who was driven out of her matrimonial home in 2005 and filed a domestic violence petition in 2006 under the PWDVA, which came into force that year. 2) Lower courts dismissed the wife's claim saying the act of domestic violence occurred before the law came into force. However, the High Court and Supreme Court disagreed, finding the law intended to protect women in past domestic relationships as well. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed that applying the civil remedies under the law retrospectively does not violate the

1. By ,
Gokul Krishnan R
NUALS KOCHI.

2. Brief Facts
 The Parties in this case married on 23rd August 1980 and on
4th July 2005 the Respondent(wife) was driven out of her
matrimonial home .
 Thereafter Respondent filed a petition to the Magistrate
under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act(PWDVA).
 The Magistrate granted interim 0f Rs 6000 to the wife relief
and subsequently passed a protection/residence order
under Section 18 and 19 of the PWDVA Act Act protecting
the right of the Respondent wife to reside in her
matrimonial home in Mathura .

3.  Meanwhile the Husband who was in Armed Forces retired and
he filed an application to evict the wife from the Government
accommodation
 Considering this the Magistrate ordered the petitioner to allow
his wife to stay in the first floor of her matrimonial home or if
that’s not possible to find an accommodation near to her
matrimonial home or to give an amount of Rs 10,000 as rental
charges.
 As she was not satisfied with the order of the Magistarte she
preferred an appeal.

4.  The Appeal was dismissed and the Additional Sessions
judge opined that “since the petitioner had left the
matrimonial home on 4.7.2005 and the Act came into
force on 26.10.2006, the claim of a woman living in
domestic relationship or living together prior to
26.10.2006, was not maintainable”
 On an appeal to the HC it looked into this question of law
and it ordered that the action is maintainable even if it
was done before coming into force of the Act

5. Judgment
 SC agreed with the reasoning given by the HC and
held that
“In our view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that
even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but
was no longer doing so when the Act came into force,
would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act,
2005.”
 The Court considering the advanced age of the
Respondent directed the petitioner to provide suitable
portion of his residence to Respondent and a sum of
10,000 per month for her maintanence

6. Legal Points Discussed
Not In Violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution
 The Court stated that the Act does not criminalize
Domestic Violence in itself .
 Section 31 (A breach of protection order, or of an interim
protection order, by the respondent shall be an offence
under this Act and shall be punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine which may
extend to twenty thousand rupees, or with both of
the Act is a penal provision )

7.  And Offences under Section 31 can only be committed
after the coming into force of the Act.
 The Court held that
“since the acts of violence themselves do not constitute
an offence punishable under and it is only the breach
of the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 18
or Section 23 of the Act which has been made
punishable, the dates on which the acts of domestic
violence were committed has absolutely no bearing on
the matter.”

8. Legislative Intent
 The Court pointed out that the Legislative Intent was to
include Acts done before the coming into force of the
Act.
 The Court came into the conclusion by looking into
definitions of “aggrieved person” given under S.2(a)
and “domestic relationship” under S.2(f) of the Act
 S.2(a) defines aggrieved person as
“any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship with the respondent and who alleges to
have been subjected to any act of domestic violence
by the respondent”

9.  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, marriage, or
through a relationship in the nature of marriage,
adoption or are family members living together as a
joint family”

10. Lack of Intelligible Differentia
 The Court said that there is no Intelligible Differentia
in distinguishing women who had lived with the
husband before the coming into force of the Act and
those who have lived with husband after coming into
force of the Act.
 Thus the Court said that such an Interpretation would
be thus violative of Section 14 of the Act.

11. Conclusion
 Objective of the Act was to protect women from
Domestic Violence and hence the Act should be
interpreted in favor of those women who are
victims of Domestic Violence.
 The Legislature’s intent was to include those
women who were victims of Domestic Violence
before coming into force of the Act. This was clear
from the definitions given to he terms “aggrieved
persons” and “domestic relationship” in the Act.

12.  The PWD Act 2005 is a civil remedy and the penal
provisions provided in the Act cannot be
committed before the coming into force of the Act
hence applying this act retrospectively is not in
violation of Art 20(1) of the Indian Constitution.
 The Court also pointed out that giving a negative
interpretation to the present legal issue would be
violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution as
there was no clear intelligible differentia

13. THANK YOU