Legal Safeguards and Realities: Understanding Rights Against Domestic Violence

Abstract

Domestic​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ violence is still a major problem that is widely spread in India, and as a result, it affects the safety of women and their dignity in families .The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 establishes a comprehensive set of safeguards for women, including court issued protection directives, secure residence rights, and various forms of financial support, however, there are still issues with the implementation of the law. The article reviews the law, court decisions, the situation on the ground, and the necessity of reforms to confirm the law’s proper ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌implementation. 

Keywords: domestic violence, maintenance, dignity of family, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Introduction

Domestic​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ violence is a disturbing reality that is often concealed from social view. It is a repetitive pattern of control and abuse that the abusers exercise against their victims within the intimate circle of the family. This goes on to diminish the victims’ independence and overall well-being. India, a country, which has been very patriarchal and has had a history of harsh treatment against  the women, has seen the Domestic Violence Act as a ray of hope and a major reform in the 2005. The Act was passed on 26th October 2005 following the advocacy of women’s groups and reports by the National Commission for Women which were in favour of the need for the enactment of a new law since the existing criminal law was inadequate (e.g. Section 498A IPC). This law not only allows for the possibility of bringing a charge under the criminal law but also provides for civil remedies. The PWDVA adopts an expansive understanding of what constitutes a domestic relationship, extending its coverage to live-in partners and a wide spectrum of familial connections.

It becomes more and more important as the number of cases increases, the fact that the Law is there and recognized by the Courts. NCRB statistics indicate that reported incidents annually cross the four-lakh mark, though many more remain unreported due to social stigma . Constitutionally, the PWDVA is based on Articles 14 (equality), 15 (non-discrimination), 21 (life and liberty), and 39A (access to justice), and is the answer to the failures of the system. However, due to the existing reality of court delays and a lack of facilities for the support of victims of domestic violence, there is still a great difference between the PWDVA provisions and the actual impact. The article goes through the different chapters of the PWDVA, court decisions, and criticism to understand better the theme of authority intervention in domestic violence situations and the reforms in this area which ultimately lead to the effectiveness of the law.

Research Methodology

The study conducted here is a doctrinal and analytical one. It drastically relies on the examination of primary sources like the PWDVA Act, other related legislations (sections 498A, 304B of IPC; CrPC), and the constitution provisions. Secondary research materials include Supreme Court and various High Court landmark judgments, scholarly articles, government reports, and NGO research. The critique is further supported by the comparison of the PWDVA with the UK’s Domestic Violence Act 2021 and the US Violence Against Women Act. The data used for this study ranges from 2005 to 2025 with the last year Supreme Court directives being the focal point.

Legal Framework

Core Definitions and Scope: According to PWDVA’s Section 2, an “aggrieved person” means a woman who is living in a domestic relationship and is subjected to violence. The Act interprets domestic violence in a broad sense, encompassing not only physical harm or threats, but also emotional mistreatment, restriction of financial resources, and other forms of coercive or degrading conduct. Under Section 17, a shared household refers to the residence where the woman has been living as part of the relationship, giving her a right to stay there regardless of who legally owns the property.

Relief Mechanisms: Protection Orders (Section 18): Courts prohibit wrongdoers from physically attacking the victim, going to workplaces, or giving help to others for abusing them, and breaking this offence punishable under Section 31.

Residence Orders (Section 19): Help a person not to be driven out, allow the return of a place if someone has kicked you out, and also make sure that your property is not sold or given away to someone else.

Monetary Relief (Section 20): This includes coverage of medical costs, compensation for loss of earnings, monthly maintenance, and support for children where needed.

Custody Orders (Section 21): Short-term custody of the child/visitation rights awarding the child’s welfare as a priority.

Compensation Orders (Section 22): Courts may also grant compensation for physical or emotional harm, similar to provisions found under CrPC 357.

Applications may be submitted to Protection Officers, service providers, or Magistrates. Hearings take place within three days and the decision is made within 60 days. Magistrates hold private hearings to protect the confidentiality of the parties involved.

Institutional Support: The state appoints Protection Officers who are responsible for the counselling, guidance, and preparation of reports; service providers (NGOs) offer safety, legal assistance. Medical centres are there for the examinations, while the police are responsible for delivering the notices.

This is a system that allows for quick and varied reparation, and it works together with the Dowry Prohibition Act and the IPC.

Judicial Interpretation

Over the years, Indian courts have played a crucial role in broadening how the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA) is understood. In Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013), the Supreme Court acknowledged that some live-in relationships function much like marriages. Because of this recognition, women in such partnerships can now seek protection under the Act. A few years later, in Harsora Sisters v. Anant Harsora (2016), the Court struck down the words “adult male” from Section 2(q) of the Act. This change removed an important restriction and opened the door for complaints to be filed against female relatives as well, making the law more inclusive and reflective of real family dynamics. Over time, the understanding of what counts as a “shared household” has also grown and become more nuanced.

The idea of what qualifies as a “shared household” has also evolved. Earlier, in S.R. Batra v. Suryakant (2007), the Court adopted a restrictive view by holding that the shared home had to be the place the couple lived together, which often excluded houses owned by the husband’s family. This position changed in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020), where the Supreme Court clarified that if a woman ordinarily lived in a property even if it legally belonged to her in-laws she could still claim a right to reside there. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010), the Court expressed concern about potential misuse of the law but also underlined that genuine complaints must be taken seriously and not dismissed out of suspicion.

Procedural Developments

Courts have also introduced several practical measures to make the Act more effective. They have emphasised faster access to temporary relief and the involvement of service providers so that women receive support at the earliest stage. Additionally, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), the Supreme Court issued guidelines to ensure that arrests in related cases are not made automatically. The ruling highlighted the need to protect the rights of victims while also safeguarding the rights of the accused, ensuring a more balanced approach.

Critical Analysis                                                                                 

Implementation Gaps, Even though PWDVA has a lot of great features, it still fails to deliver in practice. It was only by 2010 that the rules had been fully notified by 28 states; moreover, the number of Protection Officers is still very low, thus, there are districts where there is only one officer available for every five districts and consequently, the preparation of reports is delayed. Also, the courts have too much work on their hands and thus, most of them are not able to keep to the 60-day timeframes, appeals to the Sessions Courts further extend the time one has to wait. Victim-blaming is still going on, the economic abuse is very hardly litigated because of the burden of proof. Furthermore, there is a difference between the cities and the villages which makes the situation worse: women living in the cities can go to the NGOs for help, while those who reside in the villages have problems with illiteracy and transport. The NCRB mentions that 70% of cases come from lower courts and that the conviction rate is less than 30% when the cases are registered as criminal.                                               

Societal and Gender Realities: The problem with the patriarchal system is that it labels the victims as “troublemakers”, hence, the accusations of the misuse of the law prevent the filing of the cases. During the COVID-19 period, the number of cases has risen to 20-30%, and as a result, the unsuitability of virtual hearings has been exposed. Men’s rights groups point out the necessity of gender neutrality, however, the data show that the percentage of women as victims is 95%.                                                                                                   

Comparative Lens: The UK’s 2021 legislation explicitly criminalises patterns of coercive and controlling behaviour, offering a more detailed framework for such offences, while the US VAWA is a comprehensive source of funding for hotlines and shelters. Although India is strong in providing civil options, it is not able to provide as much as the VAWA does, in terms of funding.                                                                                                        

Recent Developments: Some of the 2025 Supreme Court directives in X v. State of Kerala included the requirement of just one Protection Officer for each taluka, the conducting of fast-track training courses, and the launching of digital complaint portals, thus tackling the issue of vacancies. The Union Budget 2025-26 gave $75 million for one-stop centers (Sakhi), which is 25% more than before. PILs are advocating for gender-neutral amendments in the middle of the #MenToo movement while the women’s groups are opposing the dilution of the provisions.                                                                                                        

Several high courts like Delhi have, for instance, in 2024 rulings “expanded” the term “economic abuse” to include stridhan denial. The integration of technology through e-filing apps has great potential; however, there is still the problem of the digital divide.     

Legislative Reforms: If the gender-neutrality of the PWDVA amendment is optional, then other things like 30-day disposals that are mandatory and economic abuse-predicting (e.g., sudden fund denial) should also be added. An AI should be used for case triage.         

Judicial and Institutional Enhancements: Fast-track PWDVA courts in districts; mandatory gender-sensitivity modules for judges. Triple Protection Officers’ numbers via contractual hires; fund 10,000 shelters.​                                                                                

Societal Interventions: Nationwide campaigns via NCW/Doordarshan destigmatize reporting. Corporate tie-ups for employee assistance programs; school curricula on healthy relationships.                                                                                                         

Tech and Data-Driven Approaches: Develop national DV portal for real-time tracking; blockchain for stridhan records. Annual NCRB-PWDVA audits for accountability.​​ Stakeholder synergy legislature, judiciary, NGOs, corporates can actualize rights.

Conclusion 

The​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ PWDVA’s elaborate safety measures, including the rights of the residence and financial relief, are a kind of progressive law made up mostly of changes brought by the courts and the 2025 reforms. Still, the facts of the postponements, lack of availability, and cultural barriers that affect the performance of the institution thereby continue the abuse. A series of urgent reforms, thus, have the potential to bring about an alignment of law with the experience of the people living the reality, which will result in homes free of violence and women empowered. As Justice DY Chandrachud emphasized, “Law must breathe life into rights.” It is the responsibility of collective action to create a just ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌society. 

REFERENCES / BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005) (India).
2. Indian Penal Code (1860), ss. 498A, 304B.
3. Code of Criminal Procedure (1973) (India).
4. Constitution of India (1950), arts. 14, 15, 21, 39A.
5. Dowry Prohibition Act (1961) (India).
6. National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), Crime in India Reports (2005–2024).
7. National Commission for Women (NCW), Reports on Domestic Violence and Legal Reform (2005–2024).
8. Ministry of Women and Child Development, One-Stop Centre (Sakhi) Annual Report (2025).
9. Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755 (India S.C.).
10. Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165 (India S.C.).
11. S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 (India S.C.).
12. Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2020) 15 SCC 291 (India S.C.).
13. Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 (India S.C.).
14. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 (India S.C.).
15. X v. State of Kerala (2025) (India S.C.).
16. Delhi High Court, Decisions on “Economic Abuse” and Stridhan Interpretation (2024).
17. UK Domestic Abuse Act (2021).
18. United States Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), 1994 (and reauthorizations).
19. Oxfam India, Domestic Violence Implementation Monitoring Reports (2017–2024).
20. CEHAT, Domestic Violence Support Services Report (2020).