What Domestic Violence Is, and Who May Complain

The definition has two limbs and both must be satisfied: they must have lived together in a shared household, and the relationship must be of one of the five listed kinds.

"Relationship in the nature of marriage" is the phrase that reaches a live-in relationship, and it is not open-ended. In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, AIR 2011 SC 479, the Supreme Court held that such a relationship is akin to a common law marriage and requires that the couple hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses, be of legal age to marry, be otherwise qualified to enter a legal marriage including being unmarried, and have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out as akin to spouses for a significant period, and in addition that they lived together in a shared household. In Indra Sarma v. V. K. V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755, the Court applied that test to a woman who knew her partner was married and held her outside the Act. Both are set out in full in [Maitri Sambandh, Live-in Relationships and the Divided Home].

"Family members living together as a joint family" should not be overlooked. It brings in a sister, a daughter-in-law, a widowed aunt, anyone living in the joint family, without any question of marriage at all.

Section 2(s): shared household

A shared household means a household where the aggrieved person lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship, either singly or along with the respondent, and includes such a household:

• whether owned or tenanted jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent; or
• owned or tenanted by either of them, in respect of which either or both, jointly or singly, have any right, title, interest or equity; and
• includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in it.

That last limb is the widest words in the Act. A house belonging to the respondent's joint family is a shared household even though neither he nor she owns any part of it. It is what makes section 17, the right to reside, worth having, because in most Indian households the daughter-in-law owns nothing and her husband may own nothing either.

Section 3: what domestic violence is

For the purposes of the Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes domestic violence if it:

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person, or tends to do so, and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct in clause (a) or (b); or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

Notice how wide this is before the Explanations even begin. It covers an omission as well as an act. It covers conduct that tends to harm, so no harm need have occurred. Clause (d) is a residual sweep. And clause (b) makes a dowry demand itself domestic violence, without any violence at all, which is why the Act borrows the definition of dowry from the Dowry Prohibition Act in section 2(h).

Explanation I: the four abuses

Physical abuse means any act or conduct of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm or danger to life, limb or health, or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person, and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force.

Sexual abuse includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman.

Verbal and emotional abuse includes insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling, and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.

The words about not having a child, and specifically not having a male child, are worth quoting in an answer. Parliament named that particular cruelty because it is so common, and no other Indian statute does.

Economic abuse includes three things, and the Act spells each out.

(a) The deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom, whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise, or which she requires out of necessity, including but not limited to household necessities for her and her children, stridhan, property jointly or separately owned by her, payment of rent related to the shared household, and maintenance.

(b) The disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like, or other property in which she has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship, or which may be reasonably required by her or her children, or her stridhan.

(c) The prohibition or restriction of continued access to resources or facilities which she is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship, including access to the shared household.

Economic abuse is the head that most surprises students. Cutting off a woman's money, selling the household goods, disposing of her stridhan, stopping the rent, or locking her out of the house is domestic violence under this Act as much as striking her is.

Explanation II: the test is the whole picture

Explanation II provides that for the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct constitutes domestic violence under the section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.

That is a direction against reading the definitions clause by clause in isolation. A single sharp word is not domestic violence; the same word in a pattern of humiliation may be. It is the same instinct as the direction in Samar Ghosh that a marriage must be reviewed as a whole, and it is worth citing when a problem question turns on conduct that looks trivial in isolation.

How the definitions fit together

The order of questions in a problem is fixed, and answering them out of order produces nonsense.

Is the complainant a woman? If not, the Act does not apply.

Is the person complained against an adult male in a domestic relationship with her, or, where she is a wife or a partner in a relationship in the nature of marriage, a relative of his? If not, there is no respondent.

Have the two lived together, at any time, in a shared household? If not, there is no domestic relationship, whatever the relationship between them.

Is the relationship one of the five kinds in section 2(f)? Consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or family members living together as a joint family.

Does the conduct fall within section 3? Given the width of clause (a) and the residual clause (d), it usually will if the first four questions are answered yes.

That is also the order in which Velusamy and Indra Sarma were decided. Both failed at the third and fourth questions, not the fifth.

A worked example

Four women ask whether they are within the Act. Sunita is beaten by her husband. Meena is taunted daily by her mother-in-law and her husband's sister for the dowry her family did not bring. Kavita's husband takes her whole salary and gives her nothing for the house. Farah lived with a married man for six years believing him to be single, and has now been turned out.

Sunita. She is an aggrieved person under section 2(a), a woman in a domestic relationship with the respondent; her husband is a respondent under section 2(q), an adult male; and the beating is physical abuse under section 3.

Meena. The taunts are verbal and emotional abuse under section 3, and the demand-related harassment is separately covered: harassing or harming her with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for dowry is domestic violence in itself. And though the respondent must ordinarily be an adult male, the proviso to section 2(q) lets a wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage file a complaint against a relative of the husband, which reaches the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law.

Kavita. That is economic abuse, one of the four named abuses and the one students forget: deprivation of the economic or financial resources to which she is entitled, and disposal of household effects and of her stridhan.

Farah. The doorway is section 2(f), a relationship in the nature of marriage, and the test in Velusamy requires the parties to be otherwise qualified to marry, including being unmarried. He was married. Whether her belief that he was single alters that is precisely what Indra Sarma was about, and there the woman knew; this book states the test and does not extend the case beyond what it decided.

And where must they have lived? In a shared household under section 2(s), which includes a household owned or tenanted by either of them, jointly or singly, and one belonging to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether either has any right, title or interest in it.

What it does NOT mean

Only a woman may complain. An "aggrieved person" under section 2(a) is a woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent.

The respondent is not any person. Under section 2(q) he is an adult male in a domestic relationship, and only where the aggrieved person is a wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may a complaint be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner.

A domestic relationship is not any relationship. It requires that the two live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household, and one of the five relationships: consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or membership of a joint family.

A shared household is not property the respondent owns. It includes a household owned or tenanted by either of them, jointly or singly, and a house belonging to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in it.

Domestic violence is not confined to acts. It covers an act, omission or commission or conduct, and conduct that merely tends to harm.

Dowry demand is not an incident of some other abuse. Harassment to coerce her or a person related to her to meet an unlawful demand for dowry is domestic violence in itself.

And economic abuse is not a footnote. It is one of the four named abuses and the one students forget.

Quick revision

• s.2(a) aggrieved person: any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence.
• s.2(q) respondent: any adult male who is or has been in a domestic relationship with her; and where she is a wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage, a complaint may also lie against a relative of the husband or male partner.
• s.2(f) domestic relationship: two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household, related by consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as members of a joint family.
• s.2(s) shared household: a household where she lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, owned or tenanted by either of them, jointly or singly, or belonging to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of any right, title or interest of either in it.
• s.3 domestic violence: any act, omission or commission or conduct that harms or injures or endangers health, safety, life, limb or wellbeing, whether mental or physical, or tends to do so, and includes physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; harassment to coerce an unlawful dowry demand; and any threat.

Test yourself

1. Who may complain under the Act, and against whom? Any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to an act of domestic violence. The respondent must be an adult male in such a relationship; where the aggrieved person is a wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage, a complaint may also be filed against a relative of the husband or male partner.

2. What is a domestic relationship? 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.

3. What is a shared household? A household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or with the respondent, whether owned or tenanted either jointly by them or by either of them, and includes a household belonging to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in it.

4. What amounts to domestic violence? Any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent which harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or wellbeing, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person, or tends to do so, and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; harassing, harming, injuring or endangering her with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for dowry or other property or valuable security; and otherwise injuring or causing harm, whether physical or mental, to her.