Domestic violence relief can proceed on a past domestic relationship and without a Domestic Incident Report.

Consideration of a Domestic Incident Report is not mandatory in every application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; the Magistrate may entertain a direct complaint and grant interim, ex parte, or final relief even if no report is received. Actual contemporaneous residence with the respondents is not required, because the rights of residence in a shared household arise from the broad statutory definitions. A present domestic relationship at the date of filing is also unnecessary where the parties had earlier lived together and the alleged violence is referable to that past relationship. The appeal succeeded and the contrary findings were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether consideration of a Domestic Incident Report is mandatory before passing orders on an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. (ii) Whether the aggrieved person must actually reside with the respondents at the time of the alleged domestic violence. (iii) Whether a subsisting domestic relationship must exist at the time of filing the application.

Issue (i): Whether consideration of a Domestic Incident Report is mandatory before passing orders on an application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Analysis: Section 12 permits an aggrieved person, a Protection Officer, or any other person on her behalf to apply directly to the Magistrate for reliefs. The proviso requires consideration of a Domestic Incident Report only when such a report is received from a Protection Officer or service provider. The absence of such a report does not bar the Magistrate from entertaining the application or granting interim, ex parte, or final reliefs.

Conclusion: The requirement is not mandatory in every case. The finding against the appellant on this point was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the aggrieved person must actually reside with the respondents at the time of the alleged domestic violence.

Analysis: The definitions of domestic relationship and shared household under Sections 2(f) and 2(s), read with Sections 17 and 19, are of wide amplitude. The right to reside in a shared household is not confined to actual contemporaneous residence. A woman may enforce that right even if she is excluded from the household or is not physically residing there when relief is sought.

Conclusion: Actual residence with the respondents at the time of violence is not a prerequisite. The contrary finding was disapproved.

Issue (iii): Whether a subsisting domestic relationship must exist at the time of filing the application.

Analysis: Domestic relationship includes persons who have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. The Act protects past domestic relationships as well, provided the alleged violence is referable to that relationship. Widowhood does not by itself extinguish the statutory remedies arising from the earlier domestic relationship.

Conclusion: A present domestic relationship at the date of filing is not essential if the parties had earlier lived in a domestic relationship and the grievance arises from that relationship.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the contrary findings of the High Court and First Appellate Court were set aside, and the Magistrate's order granting reliefs under the Act was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A woman may invoke the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on the basis of a past domestic relationship and her statutory right to reside in a shared household, and the Magistrate need not be precluded from granting relief merely because no Domestic Incident Report accompanies a complaint directly filed by the aggrieved person.

---