Definitions
Section 2 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 deals with definitions. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (a) "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 any act of domestic violence by the respondent; The Act came into force on 26 Oct 2006.
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) "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 any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
(b) "child" means any person below the age of eighteen years and includes any adopted, step or foster child;
(c) "compensation order" means an order granted in terms of section 22;
(d) "custody order" means an order granted in terms of section 21;
(e) "domestic incident report" means a report made in the prescribed form on receipt of a complaint of domestic violence from an aggrieved person;
(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
(g) "domestic violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3;
(h) "dowry" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961);
(i) "Magistrate" means the Judicial Magistrate of the first class, or as the case may be, the Metropolitan Magistrate, exercising jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974) in the area where the aggrieved person resides temporarily or otherwise or the respondent resides or the domestic violence is alleged to have taken place;
(j) "medical facility' means such facility as may be notified by the State Government to be a medical facility for the purposes of this Act;
(k) "monetary relief" means the compensation which the Magistrate may order the respondent to pay to the aggrieved person, at any stage during the hearing of an application seeking any relief under this Act, to meet the expenses incurred and the losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence;
(l) "notification" means a notification published in the Official Gazette and the expression "notified" shall be construed accordingly;
(m) "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(n) "Protection Officer" means an officer appointed by the State Government under sub-section (1) of section 8;
(o) "protection order" means an order made in terms of section 18;
(p) "residence order" means an order granted in terms of sub-section (1) of section 19;
(q) "respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner;
(r) "service provider" means an entity registered under sub-section (1) of section 10;
(s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a house hold whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;
(t) "shelter home" means any shelter home as may be notified by the State Government to be as helter home for the purposes of this Act.
Section 2, 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.
This section refers to
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.
-
Hiral P. Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The words 'adult male person' in the definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are unconstitutional as they violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The restriction creates an arbitrary classification lacking intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the Act's stated object of protecting women from domestic violence of any kind. A gender-based and age-based restriction cannot serve the purpose of a beneficial statute designed to protect women from violence perpetrated by any person within a domestic relationship or shared household. The words 'adult male' must be deleted from Section 2(q) through application of the severability doctrine, leaving the remainder of the Act intact to achieve its constitutional purpose. The proviso to Section 2(q) becomes otiose and is also rendered void upon deletion of these words.
On this section: Core provisions defining aggrieved person, domestic relationship, respondent, shared household, and remedies available under the Act. Court examined each definition and remedy to determine whether the restriction to adult male persons serves the object of the Act or defeats it.
-
Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
DV Act s.2(s) 'shared household' is not limited to a household the woman jointly owns or that belongs to the husband. A residence where she has lived in a domestic relationship — including the matrimonial home owned by the father-in-law — can be a shared household. s.17 right to reside and s.19 residence orders apply; S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra was wrongly decided on this point.
On this section: s.2(s) 'shared household' is not confined to a house the woman jointly owns or that stands in the husband's name (Batra overruled).
-
Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A live-in relationship may be a relationship in the nature of marriage under DV Act s.2(f) if Indra Sarma indicators are met (duration, shared household, pooling, children, socialisation). A married man's relationship with an unmarried woman, known to her to be adulterous, may fall outside.
On this section: s.2(f) relationship in the nature of marriage is applied through the Indra Sarma indicators.
-
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: Core definitional section defining 'respondent' as adult male person but with proviso allowing complaints against relatives of husband or male partner. Court held that the undefined term 'relative' is not gender-restricted and includes female relatives.
-
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court held that while there is no fundamental right to marry under the Indian Constitution, LGBTQ+ persons have a constitutional right to enter into abiding cohabitational relationships grounded in Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, and 25. The Special Marriage Act 1954 cannot be read down to permit same-sex marriages due to semantic impossibilities and interconnected gendered provisions. The Court recognized that existing laws create indirect discriminatory impact on queer couples by denying them access to spousal benefits in employment, succession, adoption, and taxation. The Court declined to issue directions for marriage equality, finding such matters require comprehensive parliamentary action. Instead, the Court directed the Union Government to constitute a high-powered committee to examine the discriminatory impact of existing laws and regulations on same-sex couples and recommend appropriate remedies. Transgender persons in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing laws through harmonious interpretation with the Transgender Persons Act.
On this section: Define domestic relationship to include live-in relationships; provides some recognition to non-marital unions but not comprehensive
-
Supriyo @ Supriya Chakraborty vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The foundational ratio of the judgment is: While the Indian Constitution does not expressly protect a fundamental right to marry (and therefore the Special Marriage Act and Foreign Marriage Act cannot be compelled to be read in gender-neutral manner to include same-sex couples through judicial reinterpretation), the Constitution protects LGBTQ+ persons' right to enter into abiding relationships with freedom from state interference, dignity, autonomy, and privacy. The state has affirmatively created the institution of marriage and conferred tangible and intangible benefits through it. By systematically excluding LGBTQ+ persons from these benefits while providing them to heterosexual couples, the state engages in indirect discrimination violating Articles 14 and 15. While courts cannot create new legal statuses through interpretation, the state (Union Government and State Governments) is under constitutional obligation to eliminate the discriminatory impact by: (1) undertaking comprehensive examination of all laws and regulations that tie benefits to marital status; (2) ensuring that sexual orientation-based discrimination is removed from all statutory schemes; (3) considering appropriate legislative or administrative measures to recognize LGBTQ+ unions and extend benefits; (4) protecting LGBTQ+ persons from family violence, coercion, and police harassment; (5) not interfering with the right of LGBTQ+ persons to live in intimate relationships free from state coercion. The exact form this takes (marriage, civil unions, domestic partnerships, administrative extension of benefits) is for Parliament and the state legislatures to determine after appropriate consultation, but the obligation to eliminate discrimination is immediate.
On this section: The DV Act defines 'domestic relationship' to include relationships in the nature of marriage. The court noted this as an example of the law recognizing non-marital unions in limited contexts, showing the legislature's capacity to do so.
-
Vaishali Abhimanyu Joshi vs Nansaheb Gopal Joshi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a suit between licensor and licensee for recovery of possession of immovable property is cognizable by a Small Causes Court under Section 26(1) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (as amended by Maharashtra Act 24 of 1984), the counter-claim filed by the defendant seeking residence rights under Section 19 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is fully entertainable by the Small Causes Court, as the 'non obstante' clause in Section 26(1) overrides the jurisdictional limitations in Schedule II (Item 11), and Section 26 of the DV Act 2005 explicitly permits reliefs under Sections 18-22 to be sought in any legal proceeding before a civil court, including Small Causes Courts.
On this section: To determine whether the suit flat qualifies as a shared household where the appellant has rights of residence
-
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: Definition of domestic violence incorporated by reference from Section 3 of the same Act
-
Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar vs Mah. Housing & Area Devt. Auhority
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A married woman has a recognized right to reside in her matrimonial home embedded in her status as wife under family law principles, but this right cannot be enforced through writ jurisdiction when the dispute involves private family property. The right to reside in matrimonial home flows from independent legal principles of family law and is distinct from and not derivable from statutory rehabilitation schemes under housing redevelopment acts. A wife's claim to reside in family property allocated to husband after redevelopment must be adjudicated in civil or family court with appropriate fact-finding jurisdiction, not through writ petition under Article 226. The statutory obligation of housing authorities and builders to rehabilitate dishoused occupiers is limited to those with direct title or independent occupancy rights under the statute, and does not extend to family members claiming collaterally through the primary beneficiary.
On this section: Court relied on this to recognize concept of matrimonial home as shared household where wife has protected rights
-
Sreeja S. v. Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Two adult women may live together. A same-gender live-in relationship does not offend any penal provision after Navtej. In habeas corpus the court's role is to ascertain the adult's free will (Shafin Jahan / Nandakumar). Parents cannot confine an adult daughter against her will. Live-in is recognised under the DV Act.
On this section: Live-in relationship is legislatively recognised (DV Act); used to support the right of two adults to cohabit.
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.
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 2
What have the courts held on Section 2 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act?
Hiral P. Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (06 Oct 2016) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Core provisions defining aggrieved person, domestic relationship, respondent, shared household, and remedies available under the Act. Court examined each definition and remedy to determine whether the restriction to adult male persons serves the object of the Act or defeats it. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 9 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2023.
How do I find court cases under Section 2 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 2, section 2 DV Act, section 2 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Hiral P. Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (06 Oct 2016).
What should I read with Section 2 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 3 (Definition of domestic violence), section 8 (Appointment of Protection Officers), section 10 (Service providers), section 18 (Protection orders), and on 3 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 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 2 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act come into force?
Section 2 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, cited as DV Act 2, 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
- 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
- 10. Service providers293 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.