Protection order under the Domestic Violence Act is a court order that prohibits the respondent from committing acts of domestic violence against the aggrieved person and may restrain specific threatening or abusive conduct. Under Indian law, protection orders are governed by Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Legal definition
Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides:
The Magistrate may, after giving the aggrieved person and the respondent an opportunity of being heard and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken place or is likely to take place, pass a protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and prohibit the respondent from— (a) committing any act of domestic violence; (b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence; (c) entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person or, if the person aggrieved is a child, its school or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person; (d) attempting to communicate in any form whatsoever with the aggrieved person, including personal, oral, written, electronic or telephonic contact; (e) alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed by both the parties, jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent, including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate; (f) causing violence to the dependants, other relatives or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence; (g) committing any other act as specified in the protection order.
How courts have interpreted this term
Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora [(2016) 10 SCC 165]
The Supreme Court struck down the words "adult male" from the definition of "respondent" in Section 2(q) of the DV Act, holding that protection orders and other reliefs under the Act can be sought against female respondents as well (such as the mother-in-law or sister-in-law). The Court held that restricting the definition to "adult male" was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot [(2012) 3 SCC 183]
The Supreme Court held that a protection order under Section 18 can be passed even with reference to domestic violence that occurred before the DV Act came into force on October 26, 2006. The Court observed that the past conduct of the respondent is relevant for determining whether domestic violence has taken place and for framing appropriate reliefs under the Act.
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma [(2013) 15 SCC 755]
The Supreme Court held that protection under the DV Act is available to women in live-in relationships, not just legally married women, provided the relationship is "in the nature of marriage." The Court laid down guidelines for determining when a live-in relationship qualifies as a "relationship in the nature of marriage" for the purposes of the Act.
Why this matters
Protection orders are the primary enforcement mechanism of the Domestic Violence Act and serve as the first line of legal defence for women facing domestic abuse. Unlike criminal remedies under Section 498A IPC (Section 85 BNS), which focus on punishment of the perpetrator, protection orders are preventive in nature — they aim to stop domestic violence before it occurs or recurs.
The breadth of Section 18 is significant. A protection order can prohibit not only physical violence but also emotional abuse, economic abuse (including alienation of assets and interference with streedhan), and even indirect forms of harassment such as unwanted communication. The provision also protects persons who assist the aggrieved woman, preventing retaliatory violence against supporters.
For practitioners, obtaining a protection order requires demonstrating to the Magistrate, on a prima facie basis, that domestic violence has taken place or is likely to take place. The standard is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but a reasonable apprehension of domestic violence. Ex parte interim protection orders can be obtained in urgent situations under Section 23 of the Act. Breach of a protection order is a cognizable and non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment up to one year under Section 31.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Related DV Act remedies:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Can a protection order be obtained against a woman (mother-in-law)?
Yes. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Hiral P. Harsora (2016), protection orders under the DV Act can be sought against any person, including female relatives such as the mother-in-law or sister-in-law. The Court struck down the restriction that limited respondents to "adult males" only.
What happens if the respondent violates a protection order?
Breach of a protection order is a cognizable and non-bailable offence under Section 31 of the DV Act, punishable with imprisonment up to one year or a fine up to twenty thousand rupees, or both. The aggrieved person may file a complaint directly with the police.
Can a protection order be obtained in a live-in relationship?
Yes. The Supreme Court in Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2013) held that women in live-in relationships "in the nature of marriage" are entitled to protection under the DV Act, including protection orders under Section 18.
How quickly can a protection order be obtained?
The Magistrate may pass an ex parte interim protection order under Section 23 of the DV Act on the basis of the aggrieved person's affidavit if satisfied that the application discloses prima facie domestic violence. This can be obtained at the first hearing itself, before notice is served on the respondent.
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.