Application to Magistrate
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 deals with application to Magistrate. An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any dome The Act came into force on 26 Oct 2006.
(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:
Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
(2) The relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation or damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the respondent:
Provided that where a decree for any amount as compensation or damages has been passed by any court in favour of the aggrieved person, the amount, if any, paid or payable in pursuance of the order made by the Magistrate under this Act shall be set off against the amount payable under such decree and the decree shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), or any other law for the time being in force, be executable for the balance amount, if any, left after such set off.
(3) Every application under sub-section (1) shall be in such form and contain such particulars as may be prescribed or as nearly as possible thereto.
(4) The Magistrate shall fix the first date of hearing, which shall not ordinarily be beyond three days from the date of receipt of the application by the court.
(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.
Section 12, The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act 43 of 2005).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-7.pdf 2022-05-12 DATE VERIFIED. Crl.A. 511/2022. B.V. Nagarathna. Digitally signed 2022.05.12. Isolates DV Act 12: a Domestic Incident Report is not a sine qua non for a s.12 application; the aggrieved person need not be residing with the respondents at the instant of the violence; a domestic relationship can be a past relationship, including a widow’s claim to a shared household. Map dv-act 12 cited only. Do not pad dv-act 2/17/19/20 (already filled) or dv-act 3/18 (not the isolate).
On this section: A DV Act 12 application does not require a Domestic Incident Report as a sine qua non; the applicant need not reside with the respondents at the time of filing, and a past domestic relationship (including a widow’s shared-household claim) is enough (Prabha Tyagi). Do not pad dv-act 2/17/19/20 (already filled).
-
Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The undefined term 'relative' in the proviso to Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not gender-restricted and includes female relatives of the husband or male partner. Therefore, an aggrieved wife or female can file a complaint against female relatives of her husband or male partner under the Act, and such female relatives can be made respondents in domestic violence proceedings.
On this section: Provisions under which the original domestic violence complaint was filed by the appellant
-
Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Courts dealing with petitions/complaints filed under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 have the inherent power to allow amendments to such petitions/complaints even though no specific amendment provision exists in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Such amendments can be allowed in appropriate cases where: (1) the amendment relates to curable infirmities or subsequent events creating new causes of action; (2) allowing the amendment serves to avoid multiplicity of litigation; (3) no cognizance has been taken or summons issued; (4) the amendment does not fundamentally change the nature of the complaint; and (5) no prejudice is caused to the respondent. The civil nature of reliefs available under the Domestic Violence Act and the Legislature's intent as reflected in Section 28(2) support the exercise of this power.
On this section: Allows application to Magistrate by aggrieved person, Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of aggrieved person to claim one or more reliefs. Court emphasized this provision's flexibility in allowing claims.
-
Saraswathy vs Babu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The conduct of the respondent-husband in preventing the appellant-wife from residing in the shared household, even after court orders granting her restitution of conjugal rights, constitutes continuance of domestic violence including economic abuse. Conduct of parties prior to the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be taken into consideration while passing orders under Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the PWD Act, 2005. In cases of continued domestic violence following court orders, courts are competent to grant protection orders, residence orders, maintenance, and compensation for mental torture and emotional distress under the PWD Act, 2005.
On this section: Procedure for filing application for protection orders; Court noted that application was properly filed and grounds were satisfied
-
Pratyaksha Pal Choudhary vs Paritosh Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to a matrimonial dispute enter into a comprehensive written settlement agreement providing for division of assets, transfer of property, and mutual dissolution of marriage, and both parties express unambiguous consent in person before the Supreme Court, the Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to: (1) dissolve the marriage by passing a decree of divorce by mutual consent; (2) waive the statutory waiting period normally required for divorce by mutual consent; (3) make the settlement agreement binding on both parties; (4) quash and dispose of all concurrent criminal proceedings (FIR and criminal revision petitions) pending in other courts as part of comprehensive settlement if parties consent; (5) quash and dispose of all concurrent civil proceedings (applications under Domestic Violence Act and other laws) pending in other courts as part of comprehensive settlement if parties consent; and (6) consolidate multi-jurisdictional proceedings into a single Supreme Court order to provide complete finality and prevent fragmented litigation. The exercise of Article 142 powers is appropriate where matrimonial settlement includes property transfer documented and registered, parties are present in person confirming consent, and consolidation of proceedings prevents further litigation burden and serves ends of justice.
On this section: Sections relating to protection orders and maintenance in domestic violence cases; Application No. 1999/2024 and Application No. 2000/2024 filed under these sections before Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner, quashed and disposed in settlement
-
Srishti Salwan vs Bhavesh Dua
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When parties to a matrimonial dispute resolve all criminal, civil, and matrimonial issues through mediation, the Supreme Court may exercise its power under Article 142 to dissolve the marriage and terminate all connected litigations to ensure complete justice.
On this section: DV case pending was terminated by the settlement.
-
Shakti vs Anita
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of irretrievable breakdown of marriage characterized by prolonged separation (10 years in this case), where both parties have reached consensus ad idem that the marriage cannot be salvaged, the Supreme Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage and mutual consent, even though the specific statutory grounds under the Hindu Marriage Act may be disputed or reversed by lower courts. The continuation of a marriage devoid of substantive connection and characterized by acknowledged incompatibility becomes meaningless, and judicial intervention should facilitate dissolution rather than perpetuate a legal fiction. Additionally, when determining permanent alimony for a highly qualified woman who claims unemployment, the Court must consider the implausibility of permanent joblessness given her qualifications and may infer an ability to earn, while still providing reasonable financial security. The preferences of mature children regarding custody, when freely expressed and not contested, should be respected as consistent with their welfare.
On this section: Referenced in context of pending proceedings (CRA-99-2022) filed by the respondent before the Sessions Judge, Jhajjar. The Court quashed these proceedings on the ground that the issues of domestic violence and marital discord were subsumed within the divorce decree and the alimony settlement.
-
Shweta @ Shikha Mukesh Tiwari vs Mukesh Kailash Tiwari
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent without strict adherence to the statutory waiting period under Section 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, when parties have voluntarily reached a fair and comprehensive settlement agreement through mediation, have been living separately for a substantial period demonstrating irretrievable breakdown of marriage, and such exercise of power serves complete justice between parties and avoids multiplicity of litigation. Mediation-based settlements constitute valid and enforceable grounds for consolidation and disposal of all connected matrimonial and criminal proceedings across multiple courts through a unified Supreme Court order.
On this section: Court quashed proceedings under PWDVA filed by mother-in-law based on mutual settlement between husband and wife, treating settlement as ground for discontinuance of domestic violence case
-
Manpreet Kaur vs Vikramjit Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple related proceedings involving the same parties are pending in different courts within the same district, and one of those proceedings is a matrimonial petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act, it is appropriate for the High Court to exercise its transfer jurisdiction to consolidate all proceedings in a single Family Court to ensure judicial efficiency, avoid multiplicity of proceedings, and maintain consistency in judicial decisions.
On this section: Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2004 deals with protection orders. Manpreet Kaur has filed a petition under this section at Pathankot, which is another proceeding pending in the same district, supporting the consolidation argument.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… This application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It was pointed out that Rule 6(5) can be pressed into service for enforcement of any Order passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, with respect to the power of the learned magistrate, even in a case where Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. is applicable, to invoke the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery ..8.. 2025:KER:13866 Act, …
-
… This application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. It was pointed out that Rule 6(5) can be pressed into service for enforcement of any Order passed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, with respect to the power of the learned magistrate, even in a case where Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. is applicable, to invoke the provisions of the Kerala Revenue Recovery ..8.. 2025:KER:13866 Act, …
-
… No.263/2021 in M.C. No.8/2021 on the file of the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, filed by the respondent/wife. The parties in this revision will be referred to as described in M.C. No.8/2021. 2. M.C. No.8/2021 was filed by the petitioner/wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. In the said case, she filed C.M.P. No.263/2021 seeking interim relief under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act. As per order dated 15/07/2021, the learned Magistrate passed an interim order to the following effect:- > "(1) 1st respondent shall secure …
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 12
What have the courts held on Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act?
Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (12 May 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: A DV Act 12 application does not require a Domestic Incident Report as a sine qua non; the applicant need not reside with the respondents at the time of filing, and a past domestic relationship (including a widow’s shared-household claim) is enough (Prabha Tyagi). Do not pad dv-act 2/17/19/20 (already filled). Another 8 judgments on this section are set out below, 8 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: DV Act 12, section 12 DV Act, section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. People searching for it also type dv act 12 1 and domestic violence act 12 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 9 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (12 May 2022).
What should I read with Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (2006).
When did Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act come into force?
Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, commonly called domestic violence, and cited as DV Act 12, came into force on 26 Oct 2006, having been enacted on 13 Sep 2005. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions623 words
- 3. Definition of domestic violence482 words
- 37. Power of Central Government to make rules443 words
- 19. Residence orders431 words
- 9. Duties and functions of Protection Officers360 words
- 20. Monetary reliefs336 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.