Domestic violence refers to a pattern of behaviour in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. The abuse can be physical, emotional, psychological, sexual or even economic abuse. This behaviour can occur between current or former spouses or intimate partners, and it often manifests through threats, intimidation, manipulation, and other harmful actions. It is a pattern in a relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over the other person. The victims of domestic violence often face some physical injuries and mental consequences.

When people think of domestic abuse they often focus on domestic violence. But domestic abuse includes attempts by a person in marriage or in an intimate or physical relationship. The main purpose of this kind of abuse is to have control over the other person. Domestic abuse or violence and happen to anyone whether a male or a female. Abuse can also happen in a same-sex relationship or even in live-in relationships.

Domestic abuse can escalate from threats to verbal assault to violence. It affects a person's mental and physical health and effects people of all socio-economic backgrounds and education levels. Domestic violence also effects the other members present in the family. Children, who grow up witnessing domestic violence are among those seriously affected by this crime and it affects their mental health badly.

Frequent exposure to violence in the home not only predisposes children to various physical and social problems. It also teaches them that violence is normal or common which increases the chances of them becoming the society's next generation of victims or abusers.

Signs Of Domestic Violence:

• Unexplained bruises, cuts, broken bones, sprains or injuries.
• Psychological signs like depression, anxiety, low self-esteem or suicidal tendencies.
• Behavioural changes include withdrawal from friends and family, frequent absences from work or school or excessive privacy about personal life.

Domestic Violence In India:

Domestic violence is a significant problem in India, Surveys suggest a high prevalence: National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5) indicates nearly 29.3% of married women aged 18-49 have experienced domestic/sexual violence and 3.1% of pregnant women aged 18 to 49 have suffered physical violence during their pregnancy."

In 2021, just 507 instances were registered across India under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, whereas 136,000 complaints were registered under Indian Penal Code Section 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives). According to NFHS data, 87 per cent of married women who are victims of marital violence do not seek help.

In India, domestic violence is addressed by the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These laws provide protection, relief, and criminalise cruelty against women by their husbands or relatives, encompassing physical, emotional, sexual, and economic abuse. Enforcement challenges persist due to social stigma.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA):

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) is a civil legislation aimed at safeguarding women from domestic abuse. It defines various forms of abuse, including physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, and economic, within household settings.

The PWDVA broadens the legal framework to encompass diverse forms of violence against women and emphasises the importance of prevention, protection, and rehabilitation through civil remedies. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was enacted by the Parliament on September 13, 2005, and extends to the whole of India. The main objective of enacting this Act is "to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family".

Judgements:
Girish Malhotra vs Rajni Sharma on 18 January 2020:
This case of Girish Malhotra vs. Rajni Sharma, involved a dispute over roof rights in a property inherited by three brothers. The case was dismissed due to the lack of evidence to support Girish Malhotra's claim of exclusive ownership of the roof. The court determined that the roof rights were not explicitly transferred in the will and that Girish Malhotra failed to prove adverse possession.

Key Points:

• Dispute over roof rights: The case revolved around the roof rights of a property inherited by three brothers, with the plaintiff, Girish Malhotra, claiming exclusive ownership.
• No explicit mention of roof rights in the Will: The will that divided the property among the brothers did not explicitly address the roof rights, thus, no testamentary succession occurred.
• Failed to prove adverse possession: Girish Malhotra's claim of adverse possession was rejected due to the lack of evidence establishing his exclusive and hostile possession of the roof, particularly during the lifetime of his father, who owned the property.
• Pre-emption rights: The will established pre-emption rights for the brothers when selling their shares of the property, but these rights did not apply to the roof rights, which were not explicitly mentioned in the will.
• Suit was hit by Order I Rule 9: The lawsuit was deemed incomplete as it did not include Rajnish Malhotra, a necessary party to the case, as the plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership of the roof against him.
• No challenge to the sale of the ground floor: The plaintiff did not challenge the sale of the ground floor portion of the property, rendering the No Objection Certificates presented by the defendants irrelevant to the case.
• Parking rights: The plaintiff's claim for parking rights on the ground floor was dismissed by the trial court, and no appeal was filed on this issue.

Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May, 2022:

This document details the Supreme Court of India's judgment in the case of Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi, focusing on the interpretation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The Court emphasized that the DV Act is meant to protect women from domestic violence regardless of their current living arrangement or the status of their relationship with the perpetrator. The Court further clarified that the presence of a Domestic Incident Report is not a prerequisite for the Magistrate to initiate proceedings under the DV Act.

Key Points:

• The case involved a woman who sought protection under the DV Act from her deceased husband's family after facing harassment and mental abuse.
• The Supreme Court clarified that a "domestic relationship" under the DV Act can include past relationships and does not require the aggrieved person to be currently living with the respondent.
• The Court ruled that the presence of a Domestic Incident Report is not a mandatory requirement for the Magistrate to initiate proceedings under the DV Act.
• The judgment stressed the importance of interpreting the DV Act expansively to ensure effective protection for women against domestic violence.
• The Court highlighted the right of a woman in a domestic relationship to reside in the shared household, even if she does not have a legal interest in the property.
• The Court emphasized that the DV Act aims to protect women regardless of their religious affiliation or social background.
• The Supreme Court overruled the judgments of the Madhya Pradesh and Delhi High Courts, which held that a Domestic Incident Report was a mandatory prerequisite for a Magistrate to act on a complaint.
• Domestic Violence Act not limited to kin who share victim's house says the Bombay High Court: (As reported by Times Of India)

The Bombay High Court clarified that a domestic violence complaint can be filed against relatives of the husband even if they don't live in the same household as the victim, setting aside a lower court's decision. This ruling ensures that the Domestic Violence Act protects victims against all perpetrators within the family, regardless of their living arrangements, emphasizing the comprehensive nature of the law.

"Holding that any relative of the husband if not sharing or (having) shared the same household cannot be a respondent would amount to giving a license to those relatives to commit violence to the aggrieved person and thereby rendering the very act meaningless. That just cannot be and certainly was not the intention while enacting the said statue," additional sessions judge U M Padwad said on Monday.

Judgments (People Living Under Same Roof Considered Respondent):

Vipin and 2 others vs. State of UP and another:
In the case of Vipin and others vs. the state of UP, the Allahabad High Court addressed a matrimonial dispute between the applicants Vipin and his wife Smt. Neelam who successfully settled their differences and expressed a desire to withdraw the pending criminal cases against each other. Given that both the parties affirmed their reconciliation and living together harmoniously, the court deemed it unnecessary to continue the proceedings ultimately reversing the ongoing criminal case under sections 498A, 323 IPC and 4 DP act, in alignment with established judicial precedents.

In compliance of order of this court dated 01.03.2023 the applicant no.1 - Vipin (husband) and opposite party no.-2 Smt Neelam (wife) are present before the court in person and duly identified by their counsel.

Parties stated that before this court that they have settled their matrimonial dispute and are living under the same roof together as husband and wife.

Since both the parties are present before the court and have stated to have settled their dispute amicably and they are living happily together they agreed to withdraw the cases going on between them, therefore no useful purpose would be served in keeping this application pending before this court. Learned counsel of the opposite party No. 2 has submitted that the parties in dispute are not interested in pursuing the criminal case.

Smt. Radhamma v. Union Of India And Others:

"The petition is allowed in part and it is ordered that the petitioner be granted Succession Certificate in respect of half of the assets left by the deceased except in respect of the family pension as wife only is entitled to the family pension.

The Succession Certificate to the extent of half share of the petition schedule items be issued to the respondent 4 on production of requisite Court fee according to law. She is also entitled to the pension benefits which has accrued to the estate of her husband"

The case of Smt. Radhamma v. Union of India and Others is significant in the context of Indian legal history, particularly concerning issues related to gender equality and social justice. Here's a summary of the case:

Background:
Smt. Radhamma, the petitioner, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which prescribed differential treatment in matters of succession based on gender.

Key Issues:

• Constitutional Validity: The primary issue was whether Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, which restricted certain rights of female heirs, violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth).

Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment, struck down Section 23 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, holding it unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the differential treatment based on gender as prescribed under Section 23 was discriminatory and violated the fundamental rights of equality and non-discrimination guaranteed under the Constitution.

Impact:
This judgment had a significant impact on gender equality in matters of inheritance and succession under Hindu law in India. It marked a crucial step towards equal rights for women in familial property matters, aligning inheritance laws with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Conclusion:
Smt. Radhamma v. Union of India and Others stands as a landmark case that contributed to the progressive interpretation of gender equality under Indian law, particularly in the realm of inheritance and succession. It reflects the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values and promoting social justice through legal reform.

Conclusion
The discussion of domestic violence is important intended to educate the public about the dynamics of abuse in intimate partner relationships, as well as to help victims understand their experience and family and friends of victims to recognize signs of abuse in the relationships of their loved ones.

In conclusion, addressing domestic violence requires a multifaceted approach that extends beyond legal remedies to encompass societal change and community involvement. While laws like the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provide crucial protections, the involvement of diverse stakeholders-from governmental bodies to non-profit organizations and community groups-is equally essential. By fostering a culture of empathy, awareness, and support, we can create safe spaces where victims feel empowered to seek help and where perpetrators are held accountable. Together, we can build a society where every individual, regardless of gender, finds refuge and justice under a collective roof of compassion and solidarity.

The other parties who stay out of the house can also be entitled as respondents and it is not that only ones who live under one roof shall be the respondents only.
Resources:

• https://www.justice.gov/ovw/domestic-violence
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/domestic-violence-act-not-limited-to-kin-who-share-victims-house-court/articleshow/89956439.cms
• https://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/domestic-violence-and-abuse.htm
• https://www.casemine.com/search/in/living Bunder Bsame Broof
• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1491697/

Written By: Tanisha Pruthi (BBA-LLB 3rd year law student GGSIPU)