Fouzaan Ahsan1
- Facts of the Case
The Supreme Court of India decided the matter of Neha Chawla vs. Virender Chawla and Anr. on October 4, 2019. This case emerged from a complaint filed by Neha Chawla against her brothers-in- law, Virender Chawla and another respondent, under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Neha Chawla took her marriage vows in the 1990s; thereafter, her marriage with the respondent Harvinder Singh was dissolved by a decree of divorce in 2001.
The said decree of divorce was granted ex-parte, that is without the presence and/or participation of the respondent in the proceedings. Her husband passed away in 2010. Many years after, in 2019, Neha complained of continuous harassment at the hands of the in-laws under the Domestic Violence Act. Neena’s complaint was for relief under the Domestic Violence Act that included protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, and other such provisions that make sure that women who are victims of domestic violence are being protected.
Neha Chawla alleged that although her marriage was dissolved and her husband had died, she continued to be harassed by her in-laws. The said harassment was of a continuous nature spanning over a period of years affecting her health and safety. She was entitled to relief under the Domestic Violence Act notwithstanding the dissolution of her marriage and the time that had passed since the death of her husband.
- Issues Raised In The Case
Neha Chawla vs. Virender Chawla and Anr. brought before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India a number of important points of law. Limitation of the complaint, validity of the complaint after divorce, applicability of the Domestic Violence Act on relatives of the deceased husband, and definitions of the term “shared household” and “domestic relationship” were the primary issues.
1Author: Fouzaan Ahsan BALLB(Hons), 1st Year Student, Amity University, Kolkata; fouzaanahsan40@gmail.com; +91 7044166200
- Limitation of Complaint:
The first question that arose was whether the complaint of Neha Chawla was barred by limitation. Here, the complainant had filed a complaint years after her marriage had been dissolved and her husband was dead. This factual and legal situation required the Supreme Court to determine whether there is any limitation period under the Domestic Violence Act for filing complaints and whether Neha’s delay in filing her complaint affected the maintainability of the complaint. The Domestic Violence Act itself does not envisage any period of limitation for filing complaints. Still, the general principle of law insists on recourse to set a wrong right as early as possible.
In this case, taking note of the fact that the incidents related to had occurred in the year 2001 and the husband had died in the year 2010, raised the questions on the timeliness or relevance of the claims. Consequently, the court needed to determine whether allowing complaints after the dissolution of marriage and even after the death of the husband was serving the cause of the Act, promulgated to grant immediate relief to women against domestic violence. Accordingly, the trial court weighed the desirability of the timely administration of justice against the potential for using delayed complaints to harass the husbands by abusing the legal process.
- Legality of Complaint Post-Divorce :
The second issue involved the maintainability of a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act after the dissolution of marriage. Neha Chawla’s marriage was dissolved in 2001 by a decree of divorce and she filed her complaint long thereafter. The court had to consider, therefore, whether the protections and reliefs under the Act are available in circumstances where the marital relationship ended long before the filing of the complaint. This Act shall protect women from violence within domestic relationships. Under Sec. 2(a), an “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent.
Thus the court interpreted as to whether the term “has been” under Section 2(a) allowed filing of complaints far after the dissolution of marriage, such that the same could be very much included within its ambit. The intention and objective of the legislature in question the Act, to provide immediate, and also sustained protection to women in domestic relationships, was reasoned by the court. It was contended that the protection of the Act must be read as going up to such claims or grievances which arose from relationships that ended many years ago.
- Complaint Against Relatives:
The third issue was whether the Domestic Violence Act permits a complaint against the relatives of the husband who is no more alive. Neha had complained against her brothers-in-law alleging harassment and violence. The question arising for consideration before the court was to see if the provisions of the Act extended to the relatives of a deceased husband and complaints were maintainable. Under Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, the definition of “respondent” is “any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person”. It includes relatives of the husband or male partner, and complaints can be filed against them.
It was considered whether Neha’s brothers-in-law under these circumstances would come within the definition of “respondent” under Section 2(q), even if her marriage had been dissolved and she was divorced, and her husband was dead. The court had, consequently, to determine whether the provisions in the Act can or cannot be stretched to include in-laws against whom allegations are made after the breakdown of the primary domestic relationship.
- Definition of Shared Household and Domestic Relationship:
The fourth question at issue was whether Neha Chawla had lived in a shared household and had a domestic relationship with the respondents, thereby entitling her to relief under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court had to interpret the expressions “shared household” and “domestic relationship” to ascertain Neha’s availability for protection under the Act. The definition of “domestic relationship” in section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act is a relationship between two persons who live or have at any moment lived together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage. Section 2(s) defines “shared household” to mean a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship with the respondent.
The court tried to find out if Neha had ever lived in a shared household with the respondents and whether their relationship could come within the ambit of a domestic relationship under the Act. The court considered the period of stay at the husband’s place by Neha and whether it is a shared household under the Act. Further, whether Neha’s relation with her brothers-in-law is a domestic relationship for the entitlement of relief.
- Contentions In The Case
- Petitioner (Neha Chawla):
Neha argued that she had been continuously harassed and made to face domestic violence right from the time of marriage. She has claimed that the continuance of her complaint under the Domestic Violence Act was valid despite of her having got a divorce and also the husband of the appellant is dead now.
Neha argued that the rights conferred under the Act can not be defeated by the passage of time and her change of marital status. She prayed for the protection and other measures, including grant of monetary compensation against the harassment allegedly faced by her.
- Respondents:
The respondents had vehemently argued that the complaint was barred by limitation, as it had been filed after undue delay. It was pointed out that Neha has never resided with her husband or the in- laws for many years before filing the complaint.
Their contention was that the Domestic Violence Act does not apply to a situation wherein marriage has been dissolved and husband is no more in the world. According to respondents, Neha’s claim was not maintainable under the Act and the same should be dismissed.
- Rationale Of The Case
The reasoning of the Supreme Court in this case, while taking a call on the issue at hand, was based upon an in-depth scrutiny of provisions of Domestic Violence Act and their applicability to the facts of the present case:
- Period of Limitation:
The court went into the issue of whether the complaint of Neha was barred by limitation. Though the marriage was dissolved as far back in 2001 and the complaint came after many years of that, the court held that the complaint was not maintainable. The basic purpose behind the Act is to provide immediate relief to the women who are subjected to domestic violence and allowing the complaint after a long gap would defeat the very object.
- Shared Household and Domestic Relationship:
It went to the extent of examining medically the meaning of “shared household” and “domestic relationship” under the Domestic Violence Act. In reality, Neha had not continued a domestic relationship or lived in a shared household with the respondents for such a long number of years. Therefore, it was concluded that she could not be given relief under the Act on the basis of the provisions that are formulated to protect women who are in continuing domestic relationship .
- Object of the Act:
The Supreme Court that the Domestic Violence Act is intended to offer protection and some remedy to women who are victims of violence in their current domestic relationships. The Act is not, however, intended to be used as a remedy for the revival of the rights, which have withered or atrophied and which may or may not have existed in a domestic relationship, which has stamina and longevity of more than 30 years. This would also be consistent with the purpose of the Act, which is based on acts of domestic violence, which are recent or of some duration.
- Lacunae in Legislation
Case law on the issue, for example, Neha Chawla vs. Virender Chawla and Anr., reveals many defects and ambiguities that are latent in the Domestic Violence Act.
The case also highlighted the need for uniform guidelines for the limitation period for filing complaints under the Domestic Violence Act. There is an absence of a specific provision regarding any limitation in the Act, which created confusion and contradiction between different courts. Addressing this point will not only to an extent prevent misuse but also significantly support proper usage of the Act.
The judgment highlighted the ambiguities of the Act in relation to its applicability after the dissolution of a marriage and even after the husband dies. The Act should be made to explicitly relate and address the extent to which and whether the provisions of the Act in such instances, like the divorced women or the complaints lodged years after against the relatives of the husband, would apply.
The case suggests a need for legislative amendments to address the scope of protection under the Act. Defining the limits of protection, especially in terms of the relationship duration and the timeframe for filing complaints, would provide more clarity and prevent potential misuse.
- Inference
The Supreme Court’s decision in Neha Chawla vs. Virender Chawla and Anr. This judgment, therefore, accentuates the necessity of filing the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in time and also specifies the scope and limits of the Act in respect of complaints filed several years after the marriage was dissolved, and also against relatives of the deceased husband.
This judgment has set the record clear that the Act is geared to provide immediate and ongoing relief to women in current domestic relations, and it cannot be applied to black grievances of a relationship that has ended many years earlier. Such issues which have been identified in this case shows that there exists a strong case for the legislature to amend the Domestic Violence Act. More clarity with respect to the limitation period, its applicability post-divorce, and protection scope would be steps towards removing ambiguities exposed by this case. One should make amendments which would make the Act effective in providing immediate and relevant protection to the woman facing domestic violence.
This case also highlights the concerns over legal awareness and education regarding the Act of Domestic Violence. Awareness about the rights of any woman against this Act of Parliament and the need for timely support and help has to be properly informed to the women.