Introduction
V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot is a pioneer judgment of the Supreme Court of India interpreting the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) in liberal and purposive terms. The Court categorically ruled that although the said acts of domestic violence may have been committed before the passage of the Act, the victim can still avail itself of relief under it, provided the effect of such violence continues. This case is quoted with great frequency for affirming the principle that beneficial legislations such as the PWDVA must be interpreted to advance the object of the Act – to safeguard women from domestic violence in all its guises.
Factual Background
Savita Bhanot, the respondent, married V.D. Bhanot, a retired army officer. The couple began residing together in army quarters. But because of persistent harassment and cruelty, Savita was purportedly compelled to vacate the matrimonial house in 1990. Subsequently, V.D. Bhanot retired and still lived in a private dwelling. In 2006, a complaint under the PWDVA was made by Savita Bhanot for protection orders, residence orders, and maintenance. She accused mental and emotional cruelty perpetrated during her cohabitation with her husband and claimed that she did not have any independent source of income.
The Magistrate ordered her interim maintenance of â‚ą6,000 every month and also issued protection and residence orders under Sections 18 and 19 of the PWDVA. V.D. Bhanot approached the Delhi High Court challenging these orders, contending that the PWDVA did not apply in his case, as the couple had been living separately well before the Act came into operation in 2005. The High Court dismissed this argument. Aggrieved, the husband went to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court was called upon to decide:
- If a woman who had stopped living with her husband before the PWDVA came into force could appeal to the provisions of the Act?
- Whether the residence and protection orders issued by the subordinate courts were legally valid?
- If the order of the Magistrate for maintenance and joint residence to the estranged wife was justified?
Legal Provisions Involved
- Section 2(a): Establishes that “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and claims to have been subjected to domestic violence.
- Section 2(f): Establishes “domestic relationship” as a relationship between two individuals who live or have lived together in a common household.
- Section 18 & 19: Create protection orders and residence orders to protect the interests of aggrieved women.
- Section 12: Entitles a wronged woman to file an application to the Magistrate requesting reliefs under the Act.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Supreme Court has upheld the Delhi High Court orders and rejected the Special Leave Petition of the husband. The Court has made a few significant observations and clarifications:
a. Retrospective Application of the Act
The main argument of the appellant was that since the couple had already separated prior to the enactment of the PWDVA in 2005, the Act could not be made applicable to their case. The Supreme Court dismissed this point and held that although the Act is not retrospective in nature, its application to a situation where the domestic relationship earlier existed, but the effects of domestic violence continue to impact the woman, is legitimate.
The Court held that the words “has lived together” in Section 2(f) were purposefully used by the legislature to include past relationships as well. Therefore, a woman who has lived in a domestic relationship at some point of time in time is also eligible to claim protection under the Act.
b. Purposive Interpretation
The Court stressed that PWDVA is a welfare legislation, brought into force with the express goal of safeguarding women from violence in domestic relationships. Hence, it should be construed liberally and purposively, so that the maximum benefit of the law reaches the beneficiary. To construe it strictly or technically would negate the aim of the legislation.
c. Right to Shared Household
A second key feature of the judgment was reiterating the right of the woman to live in the shared household even if the ownership of the property rests with the husband. The Court reaffirmed that a woman cannot be evicted or expelled from the shared household and has a legal right to claim occupation in it.
In this regard, the Supreme Court ordered a habitable part of the house to be given to the wife by the husband, complete with minimum amenities like a bathroom and kitchen.
d. Maintenance and Financial Support
The Court upheld the Magistrate’s order directing the husband to pay a monthly maintenance of ₹6,000 and an additional rental allowance of ₹4,000, totaling ₹10,000 per month. The Court noted that the wife was an elderly woman (63 years old at the time), had no independent source of income, and was left without financial support.
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Savita Bhanot and issued the following directions:
- Protection under the PWDVA can be extended even to the woman who is no longer cohabiting with the man, if she was cohabiting with him at some point of time.
- Domestic violence committed before the Act came into force can be the basis for relief under the Act if its impact continues to date.
- The husband was asked to grant his wife a livable part of the common residence with essential facilities.
- The maintenance of â‚ą6,000 was to be continued and the decreased rental allowance of â‚ą4,000 was directed, aggregating to â‚ą10,000/month.
- The Court directed liberty to both parties to go to the concerned forum for the purpose of modification of terms, if required.
Significance
The judgment is a turning point in domestic violence law in India. It clarified many ambiguities and strengthened women’s rights under the PWDVA in the following respects:
- Extended Scope: The Court widened the time frame of the Act, allowing women to seek relief for past instances of domestic violence, provided their effects continue.
- Beneficial Construction: Reasserted that legislation for safeguarding weaker sections of society is to be construed beneficially, with the objective of doing justice.
- Empowerment of Women: It reinforced women’s right to residence and maintenance, irrespective of the length or break-up of cohabitation.
- Avoidance of Technicality: The Court dissuaded denial of rights on technical legal grounds, particularly in social justice legislations.
Conclusion
V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot is a landmark judgment that has made a revolutionary contribution to the interpretation of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It has saved the rights of women victims of domestic violence who may have broken ties with their abuser prior to the effective date of the law. The verdict guarantees that the intent and purpose of the PWDVA are preserved – to safeguard women from physical, emotional, economic, and psychological abuse, and to give them remedial and rehabilitative assistance.
While embracing a progressive and humanitarian approach, the Court has been affirming the core values of gender justice, equality, and human dignity as guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The ruling remains a beacon of guidance in ensuring that the gates of justice shall always remain open to women regardless of the chronology of their torment.
