Domestic violence reliefs need no Section 12 report; past domestic relationships still qualify aggrieved women.

SC allowed the appeal, holding that a Domestic Incident Report under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not a mandatory precondition for a Magistrate to grant interim, ex parte or final reliefs under Sections 18-20 and 22. The Court clarified that to invoke the Act, it is not mandatory that the aggrieved woman reside with the respondent at the time of the alleged violence, provided she is related by consanguinity, marriage, relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as part of a joint family. A "domestic relationship" must have subsisted vis-à-vis the alleged violence, though it need not be subsisting on the date of filing the application.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Consideration of Domestic Incident Report before initiating proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. Necessity for the aggrieved person to reside with the respondent at the time of commission of violence.
3. Requirement of a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent at the time of filing the application.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Consideration of Domestic Incident Report:
The Supreme Court analyzed whether it is mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report before initiating proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court held that Section 12 does not make it mandatory for a Magistrate to consider a Domestic Incident Report filed by a Protection Officer or service provider before passing any order. It clarified that even in the absence of such a report, a Magistrate is empowered to pass both ex parte or interim as well as final orders under the provisions of the D.V. Act. This interpretation was supported by judgments from various High Courts, which emphasized that the proviso to Section 12(1) should not restrict the Magistrate's power to act on an application filed directly by an aggrieved person or through an advocate.

2. Necessity for the Aggrieved Person to Reside with the Respondent:
The Court addressed whether it is mandatory for the aggrieved person to reside with the respondent at the time of the commission of violence. It was held that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person to have actually lived or resided with those persons against whom the allegations have been leveled at the time of seeking relief. If a woman has the right to reside in a shared household under Section 17 of the D.V. Act and becomes an aggrieved person or victim of domestic violence, she can seek reliefs under the provisions of the D.V. Act, including enforcement of her right to live in a shared household. This interpretation ensures that the protection granted to women under the D.V. Act is available in the widest amplitude, aligning with the legislative intent of the Act.

3. Requirement of a Subsisting Domestic Relationship:
The Court examined whether there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent at the time of filing the application. It was held that there should be a subsisting domestic relationship vis-à-vis the allegation of domestic violence. However, it is not necessary that the domestic relationship should be subsisting at the time of filing the application. Even if an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent at the time of filing the application but has at any point of time lived or had the right to live in a shared household and has been subjected to domestic violence, she is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. This broad interpretation ensures that the Act's protection extends to women who have been in a domestic relationship in the past but are no longer in such a relationship at the time of filing the application.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court of Uttarakhand and the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Dehradun, and affirmed the order of the Special Judicial Magistrate-I, Dehradun. The Court held that the consideration of a Domestic Incident Report is not mandatory for initiating proceedings under the D.V. Act, it is not necessary for the aggrieved person to reside with the respondent at the time of commission of violence, and a subsisting domestic relationship at the time of filing the application is not required. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's right to seek relief under the D.V. Act was upheld.

---