Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (India) deals with the application to the Magistrate. It allows an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person to present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act. This section is crucial as it outlines the process by which an aggrieved person can seek protection and various remedies under the Act.

Key Provisions of Section 12:

1. Application to Magistrate: An aggrieved person, a Protection Officer, or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person can present an application to the Magistrate seeking relief.

2. Relief Sought: The application can seek various reliefs including protection orders, residence orders, monetary relief, custody orders, and compensation orders.

3. Timely Disposal: The Magistrate is required to fix the first date of hearing within three days of receipt of the application and make every effort to dispose of the application within sixty days.

   
   

Notable Case Law:

1. V.D. Bhanot vs. Savita Bhanot (2012):

   Facts: The husband challenged the application of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to acts committed prior to the enactment of the Act.

   Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the Act is retrospective and can be applied to acts of domestic violence that occurred before the Act came into force.

   Significance: This case clarified that the protection and relief under the Act are available for past instances of domestic violence, thus broadening the scope of protection for aggrieved persons.

   
   

2. Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (2011):

   Facts: The petitioner challenged the application of the Domestic Violence Act in a situation where the marriage had already been dissolved.

   Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be initiated if the marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce prior to the enactment of the Act.

   Significance: This case delineates the application of the Act to relationships existing at the time of the enactment and provides clarity on its temporal applicability.

   
   

3. S. R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra (2006):

   Facts: The respondent, after a dispute with her husband, sought residence in a house owned by her mother-in-law.

   Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, which does not necessarily include the household owned exclusively by in-laws unless she can prove that the house was a joint family property.

   Significance: This case clarified the definition of a “shared household” under the Act, limiting the scope to the household where the aggrieved person lived in a domestic relationship.

   
   

These cases illustrate the judicial interpretation and application of Section 12 and other provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, emphasizing its retrospective applicability, limitations in dissolved marriages, and the definition of shared households.