Two decades later, India’s landmark Domestic Violence law faces a tough question: is it still a shield for victims, or has it become a sword misused against families? The promise of protection now battles the reality of delays, misuse, and broken homes.
When the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) came into force in October 2006, it was hailed as a breakthrough moment in Indian law. For the first time, women were promised quick civil relief from abuse within their own homes; whether physical, emotional, verbal, or economic. But twenty years later, reality paints a more complex picture. While the Act has undoubtedly empowered many women, it has also exposed deep loopholes: delays in justice, lack of implementation, and, most controversially, misuse that has dragged innocent family members sometimes elderly parents and distant relatives into endless litigation.
From its bold beginning in 2005 to the challenges of 2025, this article explains the Domestic Violence Act in detail its purpose, its promises, the court rulings that defined it, the loopholes that weakened it, and the reforms still waiting.
Legislative Intent: Why India Needed the Domestic Violence Act?
In Indian society, domestic violence was for long treated as a “private matter” of the household, leaving countless women without real protection. Before 2005, their only recourse lay in criminal law provisions like Section 498A IPC or in civil proceedings such as divorce and maintenance, both of which were slow, burdensome, and failed to address the day-to-day realities of abuse. More importantly, the law did not recognise that violence is not only physical.
Emotional neglect, verbal humiliation, economic control, and psychological trauma were invisible in the legal system, even though they were devastating in daily life.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) was enacted to fill this gap. For the first time, Indian law acknowledged that violence within families could take many forms and that women needed speedy, accessible remedies to live with dignity. The intent was clear: to shift domestic violence from being a hidden, “family issue” into a serious social problem requiring legal recognition and urgent protection.
Key Judicial Milestones Shaping the Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Over the years, several rulings of the Supreme Court and High Courts have clarified the scope, coverage, and implementation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA). These decisions have expanded protections, clarified ambiguities, and reinforced the rights of women facing domestic abuse.
Some of the most important decisions are:
- Lalita Toppo v. State of Jharkhand (2018): The Court held that women in live-in relationships can also fall within the definition of “aggrieved persons,” depending on the facts of each case. This made it clear that the Domestic Violence Act is not restricted to legally married women.
- We the Women of India v. Union of India (W.P. No. 1156/2021 and connected hearings): The Supreme Court has issued several directions to strengthen implementation, including proper identification and appointment of Protection Officers and monitoring by the States. In 2024–2025, the Court again directed both the Centre and the States to take structural steps such as regular meetings and designation of officers, showing judicial concern about inconsistent implementation
- In Shyamlal Devda & Ors. v. Parimala and related decisions, the Courts clarified questions of jurisdiction (where a complaint may be filed), whether in-laws can be made respondents, and whether extended family members may be included under the Act. These rulings guide practitioners on choosing the correct forum and identifying respondents.
- Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma (2021) The Court held that an unmarried woman in a long-term live-in relationship may seek maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act if the relationship resembles marriage.
Justice Arun Monga (Delhi High Court, 2025): In a case involving the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Justice Monga criticized the woman for involving her minor daughter in a legal battle against her estranged husband. He stated that the case distorted the integrity of POCSO laws and used judicial proceedings as a tool for vengeance rather than justice.
Bombay High Court (2025): The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that a widow has the legal right to reside in her matrimonial home, stating that denying this right constitutes domestic violence under the PWDVA. This judgment reinforces the legal protections available to widows, affirming their entitlement to shared household residence.
Everyday Realities: Use and Misuse of the Domestic Violence Act
When Domestic Disagreements Spill into Courtrooms Minor household quarrels over finances, chores, or in-law disagreements sometimes escalate into “domestic violence” complaints. Once a case is lodged, husbands and even extended family members can find themselves trapped in lengthy legal battles, where the process itself feels like a punishment.
Elderly Parents Caught in the Crossfire
It’s not unusual for senior family members to be dragged into these disputes despite having little involvement. Their homes are often deemed “shared households,” forcing them to spend their later years navigating court proceedings instead of enjoying peace.
Justice Promised Quickly, Delivered Slowly
The Act was designed to provide swift relief through protection and residence orders. In reality, cases frequently drag on for years. Even if someone is eventually exonerated, the time, expense, and emotional strain endured can never truly be undone.
One Dispute, Multiple Legal Fronts
A single DV complaint rarely stays isolated. It often sparks a cascade of related cases dowry allegations, maintenance claims, custody disputes, and divorce petitions turning one conflict into a web of overlapping legal battles that consume time, energy, and resources.
Twenty Years of the Law: Healing or Hurting Relationships?
What was envisioned as a protective framework to safeguard marriages and individuals has, over the last twenty years, often produced outcomes far from its original intent. Meant to be a shield of safety, the law has, in many instances, evolved into a sword of conflict.
Instead of mending relationships, it has sometimes deepened rifts. Cases that could have been resolved privately are drawn into long, gruelling court battles, leaving families emotionally drained and socially isolated. Allegations alone can trigger legal proceedings, pulling not just spouses but entire families elderly parents, siblings, and extended relatives into disputes they never started.
The legal journey, instead of offering relief, often becomes a source of prolonged stress. Litigation stretches over years, consuming time, money, and emotional energy. The very process designed to protect vulnerable individuals ends up feeling punitive, leaving all parties trapped in a cycle of conflict.
Over time, the Act has revealed an uncomfortable truth: mechanisms intended for protection can be misused for retaliation. The law’s noble purpose ensuring safety and justice sometimes collides with human emotions, turning justice into a battlefield and families into unintended casualties.
As we reflect on twenty years of experience, it is clear that legal protections must be balanced with safeguards against misuse, emphasizing resolution, mediation, and fairness, rather than simply punitive measures. Only then can the law truly serve its purpose: restoring harmony rather than perpetuating discord.
Domestic Violence Statistics: What the Data Reveals
Over 1.3 lakh cases of “cruelty by husband or relatives” were reported in 2023, accounting for nearly 30% of all crimes against women in India.
29.8% of these cases involved extended family members, such as in-laws, being named as respondents, even if they had no direct involvement in the alleged abuse.
The average delay in resolving domestic violence cases often extends beyond two years, leading to prolonged emotional and financial strain on all parties involved.
Overlapping maintenance claims under multiple laws, including the Domestic Violence Act, Section 125 of the CrPC, and the Hindu Marriage Act, are common, resulting in confusion and extended legal battles.
Urgent Areas for Reform: Twenty Years of Lessons
Two decades are enough to understand where the law has fallen short. For the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to truly deliver justice, several critical reforms are necessary:
- Evidence, not assumption: A complaint alone should not be treated as proof of guilt. Decisions must be guided by proper evidence.
- Protect the innocent: Family members who are not part of the dispute-parents, siblings, and relatives-should not be dragged into legal battles.
- Prevent overlapping claims: Multiple maintenance claims under different laws, such as Section 125 CrPC, the Hindu Marriage Act, and the Domestic Violence Act, create confusion and unnecessary litigation. One claim should suffice.
- Speedy justice: Delays in cases effectively punish both sides. Timely hearings and resolutions are essential to prevent years of lost peace.
- Accountability for misuse: False or malicious claims undermine the law’s credibility. Those who exploit the system must face penalties to uphold fairness.
The Act was introduced to meet a genuine societal need. For the first time, women were given a direct legal voice against abuse within the home. Its strength lies in recognizing that violence is not limited to physical harm but also includes emotional, economic, and verbal abuse. By providing civil remedies, the law allows women to seek immediate protection without waiting for lengthy criminal trials, addressing non-physical harms like financial control, emotional pressure, and verbal harassment. Crucially, it moved domestic violence out of the shadows of being considered a “private family issue” into the domain of legal accountability.
However, twenty years of experience show that the Act has sometimes been misused. Innocent relatives are dragged into disputes unnecessarily, cases drag on for years, and overlapping claims create prolonged conflict. False accusations often go unpunished, fuelling bitterness between families.
The message is clear: protection for genuine victims must be preserved, but fairness cannot be ignored. The law must strike a balance-safeguarding the vulnerable while preventing misuse. Only through thoughtful reforms can the Act fulfil its promise of justice, protection, and equity.