Domestic violence is any act, omission, or conduct that harms, injures, or endangers the health, safety, life, limb, or well-being — whether physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, or economic — of an aggrieved woman, committed by a person with whom she is or has been in a domestic relationship. Under Indian law, domestic violence is defined comprehensively under Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA), which provides civil remedies including protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, and custody orders.
Legal definition
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides a detailed statutory definition:
Section 3: For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case 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 mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.
The Act further defines the specific types of abuse in the Explanation to Section 3:
- Physical abuse (Section 3, Explanation I(a)): Any act or conduct which is 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 (Section 3, Explanation I(b)): Any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades, or otherwise violates the dignity of the woman.
- Verbal and emotional abuse (Section 3, Explanation I(c)): Insults, ridicule, humiliation, name-calling, particularly in respect of not having a male child, and repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.
- Economic abuse (Section 3, Explanation I(d)): Deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled, disposal of household assets, or prohibition or restriction on continued access to resources or facilities.
The Act applies to women in domestic relationships, defined under Section 2(f) as relationships between persons who live or have lived together in a shared household, connected by consanguinity, marriage, adoption, or relationships in the nature of marriage.
How courts have interpreted this term
The Supreme Court has expansively interpreted the PWDVA to ensure its protective purpose is fully realised.
V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot [(2012) 3 SCC 183]
The Supreme Court held that the PWDVA applies retrospectively — a woman can seek protection under the Act for domestic violence that occurred before the Act came into force on 26 October 2006, provided the domestic relationship subsists at the time of filing. The Court held that the Act is intended to provide effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution, and limiting its application to acts of violence committed only after 2006 would defeat its purpose.
Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora [(2016) 10 SCC 165]
A three-judge bench struck down the words "adult male" from Section 2(q), which originally defined "respondent" as an adult male person. The Court held that restricting the definition to adult males was violative of Articles 14 and 15. After this decision, a complaint under the PWDVA can be filed against any person — male or female — who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved woman. This expanded the scope to include complaints against mothers-in-law and other female members of the matrimonial household.
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [(2020) 17 SCC 153]
The Supreme Court affirmed that the right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the Act is a comprehensive right that cannot be curtailed by the respondent merely because he owns the property. The Court held that a "shared household" includes any household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, regardless of whether she has any proprietary interest in the property.
Why this matters
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 represents one of the most significant legislative advances in Indian family law. Before its enactment, women facing domestic abuse had limited remedies — primarily Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (criminal cruelty), which required proof of a criminal standard. The PWDVA created a civil remedy framework that is faster, broader in scope, and focused on protection rather than punishment.
The Act's significance lies in its comprehensive definition of domestic violence, which goes far beyond physical beating. The inclusion of emotional, verbal, and economic abuse recognises the reality that domestic violence in India often manifests as financial deprivation, constant humiliation, threats related to dowry, or isolation from family and social networks. Economic abuse — such as denying a woman access to household finances, preventing her from working, or disposing of her stridhan — is particularly widespread and was previously invisible to the legal system.
For practitioners, the PWDVA is a powerful tool because of the range of reliefs available in a single proceeding: protection orders (Section 18), residence orders (Section 19), monetary relief (Section 20), custody orders (Section 21), and compensation orders (Section 22). The Magistrate can pass ex parte interim orders, making it possible to secure immediate protection. However, a common misunderstanding is that the Act is a substitute for criminal proceedings. It is not — the PWDVA provides civil remedies, and a woman may simultaneously pursue criminal remedies under Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) or the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Related terms
Related offences:
Related proceedings:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Who can file a domestic violence complaint in India?
Any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent can file a complaint. This includes wives, live-in partners, mothers, sisters, and widows living in a shared household. The complaint can also be filed on behalf of the aggrieved woman by any person who has reason to believe that domestic violence has been or is being committed. A Protection Officer appointed under the Act can also file a Domestic Incident Report.
Can a complaint be filed against a woman under the DV Act?
Yes, after the Supreme Court's decision in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (2016), which struck down the "adult male" requirement from the definition of respondent. A domestic violence complaint can now be filed against any person — including the mother-in-law, sister-in-law, or other female family members — who has committed domestic violence against the aggrieved woman.
What is a protection order under the DV Act?
A protection order under Section 18 of the PWDVA prohibits the respondent from committing any act of domestic violence, aiding or abetting domestic violence, entering the aggrieved person's workplace, or attempting to communicate with her. Breach of a protection order is a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to Rs 20,000, or both, under Section 31 of the Act.
Can a woman file both a DV Act case and a Section 498A case?
Yes. The PWDVA provides civil remedies (protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief), while Section 498A IPC (now Section 85 BNS) is a criminal offence (cruelty by husband or relatives). Both can be pursued simultaneously as they serve different purposes. The Supreme Court has held that proceedings under the two are not mutually exclusive.
Does the DV Act apply to live-in relationships?
Yes. Section 2(f) of the Act defines "domestic relationship" to include a relationship "in the nature of marriage." The Supreme Court in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (2010) held that a live-in relationship must resemble a marriage to qualify — the parties must hold themselves out as spouses, be of legal marriageable age, be otherwise qualified to enter a legal marriage, and have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.