INTERIM RELIEFS UNDER DV ACT, 2005

INTERIM RELIEFS UNDER THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

....................................................................................

By :

Salil Kumar

Advocate

Roll No. K/136/ 1999

 Scope of Magistrate’s Powers – Ex parte Orders – Conflicting Family Court Decrees – Parallel Proceedings – Appeals

1. JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE UNDER THE DV ACT – NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS

Proceedings under the DV Act are  civil in nature , though initiated before a judicial Magistrate of First Class.  This position is now well settled.

The Magistrate acts as a  civil court for grant of protective and welfare-oriented reliefs and  not as a criminal court imposing punishment  , except where breach of protection orders attracts penal consequences under Section 31.

This characterisation is crucial while understanding:

* interim reliefs,

* ex parte orders,

* appeals,

* and coexistence with Family Court proceedings.

II. GENERAL INTERIM RELIEFS THAT CAN BE GRANTED BY A MAGISTRATE

Statutory Basis

* Section 23(1)  – Interim orders

* Section 23(2) – Ex parte interim orders

The Magistrate may grant  any relief available under Sections 18 to 22  at the interim stage.

III. RELIEF NO. 1 – PROTECTION ORDER

(Section 18, DV Act)

A  Protection Order  restrains the respondent from committing or aiding any act of domestic violence.

It may include prohibitions against:

* physical violence,

* verbal/emotional abuse,

* economic abuse,

* contacting the aggrieved woman,

* visiting her workplace or residence.

Ex parte Grant – Yes

Under  Section 23(2) , protection orders can be granted  ex parte , if the Magistrate is satisfied from:

* the application,

* affidavit,

* Domestic Incident Report (DIR).

 Supreme Court Position

The  Supreme Court  has repeatedly held that  immediate protection is the soul of the DV Act  and delay defeats its object.

Key Case :

Kunapareddy v. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari  (2016)

  → DV Act proceedings are remedial and protective, not punitive.

IV. RELIEF NO. 2 – RESIDENCE ORDER (Section 19, DV Act)

A Magistrate may:

* restrain the respondent from dispossessing the aggrieved woman,

* direct him to remove himself from the shared household,

* restrain entry into portions of the house,

* direct alternate accommodation or rent.

 Critical Legal Question

Can a husband be restrained from entering a house built exclusively from his own earnings?

 Legal Answer – YES, CONDITIONALLY

The test is  not ownership, but  shared household  under Section 2(s).

Supreme Court Law (Now Settled)

Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja  (2020)

 → A wife’s right of residence  does not depend on title or ownership.

  → Even self-acquired property of the husband  can be a shared household .

 Kerala High Court Position

The  Kerala High Court has consistently followed  Ahuja ,  but with caution:

* Ex parte exclusion of husband from entire house  must be based on:

* grave threat,

  * violence,

  * safety concerns,

  * not as a matter of routine.

Thus, a  temporary prohibitory injunction  is legally permissible, but  not automatic.

 V. RELIEF NO. 3 – MONETARY RELIEF / INTERIM MAINTENANCE

(Section 20 read with Section 23)

Maintenance may include:

* food,

* clothing,

* medical expenses,

* rent,

* loss of earnings,

* maintenance for children.

Ex parte Interim Maintenance – Permissible

Magistrate may grant ex parte interim maintenance  if prima facie domestic relationship and economic abuse are shown.

Supreme Court Authority

Rajnesh v. Neha* (2021)

  → Uniform principles for maintenance across:

 * DV Act,

  * Section 125 CrPC,

  * HMA,

  * Family Courts.

VI. NULL AND VOID MARRIAGE VS DV ACT MAINTENANCE

(MOST CRITICAL ISSUE)

 Legal Situation

* Marriage declared  null and void by Family Court on ground of fraud

* DV Act proceedings pending

* Interim maintenance ordered by Magistrate

 Does the husband have to pay maintenance?

 Supreme Court – CLEAR ANSWER: YES

Leading Judgments :

1. *Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha* (2011)

2. *Badshah v. Urmila Badshah Godse* (2014)

Even in  void or voidable marriages  a woman who lived as a wife  cannot be left destitute

 Kerala High Court Rulings

Kerala High Court has repeatedly held:

* DV Act defines  domestic relationship, not “valid marriage”

* Declaration of nullity  does not wipe out past domestic relationship

* Maintenance orders remain enforceable unless set aside on appeal

 Therefore, husband is duty-bound to comply, until the DV order is stayed or modified by appellate court.

VII. RELIEF NO. 4 – COMPENSATION

(Section 22)

Compensation may be awarded for:

* mental agony,

* emotional distress,

* trauma.

Though generally final in nature, **interim compensation** is also legally permissible.

VIII. EX PARTE INTERIM ORDERS – LEGALITY & LIMITS

(Section 23(2))

Yes, Magistrate **can pass ex parte orders** without hearing the husband, provided:

* reasons are recorded,

* urgency is shown,

* affidavit supports allegations.

However:

* such orders are **temporary**

* respondent must be heard at the earliest opportunity

IX. APPEAL AGAINST EX PARTE INTERIM ORDERS

(Section 29, DV Act)

Appeal Lies To:

Court of Sessions / District Court

Time Limit:

30 days  rom date of order

Does filing appeal stay Magistrate proceedings?

No automatic stay

DV case before Magistrate **and appeal before Sessions Court run simultaneously**, unless:

* appellate court grants stay.

 Supreme Court View

Kunapareddy  case – DV proceedings are independent and summary in nature.

X. SIMULTANEOUS PROCEEDINGS – DV ACT & SECTION 125 CrPC

Can wife file both?

✔️  Yes

Legal Position

* DV Act – civil remedy

* Section 125 CrPC – summary criminal remedySupreme Court Safeguard

Rajnesh v. Neha  (2021)

Courts must:

* disclose previous maintenance orders,

* adjust amounts,

* prevent double enrichment,

* give set-off.

XI. IMPORTANT PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES

1. Non-compliance of interim DV orders can attract:

*  enforcement under CrPC,

   * civil coercive measures,

   * penal action if protection order is breached.

2. Family Court decree does not override DV orders automatically**

3. Appeal is the only lawful remedy*not self-help or defiance.

XII. CONCLUSION

The DV Act is a  social welfare legislation, tilted in favour of protection, not punishment. Magistrates possess **wide interim powers**, including **ex parte reliefs**, but these powers are  judicially regulated  by appellate scrutiny.

A husband aggrieved by:

* exclusion from house,

* interim maintenance,

* ex parte orders,

must  approach the Sessions Court under Section 29 , not resort to non-compliance.