‘Distance does not dilute entitlement to dignity’: Domestic Violence Act covers abuse committed overseas, says Pune court

“The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, extends its shield not only to women residing within India but also to those of Indian origin abroad—be they NRIs or OCIs—who seek refuge under its provisions. Their geographical distance does not dilute their entitlement to dignity, safety, and legal redress,” the court said.

It ordered the husband to pay an interim maintenance of Rs 1 lakh per month to the wife, while also protecting her right to live in their shared household in Pune.

The case involves a woman petitioner who had filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws for alleged domestic violence that occurred primarily in the USA. The judge, A A Pandey, rejected the defence’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter as the abuse took place on foreign soil.

The court relied on Section 27(1)(a) of the DV Act, which grants jurisdiction to courts where the aggrieved person “permanently or temporarily resides”. The judge also cited a pivotal Madras High Court judgment in the Kiran Kumar Chava v Usha Kiran Anne case, which confirmed that OCI cardholders can file petitions under the DV Act.

This establishes a crucial legal principle that the Act’s provisions are meant to protect all women, irrespective of their citizenship status, so long as they are residing in India at the time of filing.

The woman applicant was represented by advocates Mayur P Salunke, Ajinkya P Salunke, Amol P Khobragade and Pallavi M Salunke. Advocate Ajinkya, who appeared for the applicant wife, told The Indian Express: “The court’s ruling establishes that a complaint of domestic violence can be entertained by an Indian court even if the abuse occurred abroad.”

“This is a significant positive outcome, as it means Indian women can return to India and seek legal recourse under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) in the jurisdiction where they are residing. The court noted that a person’s temporary residence in India is sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction under Section 27(1)(a) of the DV Act,” the counsel stated.

Furthermore, the court found that the husband’s failure to provide maintenance and pay for the house that the wife now lives in constitutes a “continuing cause of action” in India, thereby solidifying its jurisdiction to hear the case.

Finding a prima facie case of domestic violence, the court ordered the husband to pay a significant interim maintenance of Rs 1 lakh per month to the wife. The court noted the husband’s high salary of Rs 8 to 9 lakh per month and dismissed his claims of financial hardship, highlighting the legal and moral obligation to support his spouse.

The court also protected the wife’s right to live in the shared household in Pune, restraining the husband from dispossessing her or creating any third-party interest in the property.

A key point of the judgment was the court’s stance that a woman, even if highly qualified, cannot be expected to immediately find a job to meet her daily needs after being a homemaker for years. The court’s reasoning that “capacity to earn and actual earning are two distant things” is a major precedent that protects homemakers from being denied financial support.

Advocate Mayur stated: “The verdict confirms that the DV Act is not restricted to Indian citizens. The court explicitly stated that OCI cardholders and individuals temporarily residing in India are entitled to seek relief under the Act. This broad interpretation ensures that all women, regardless of their domicile status, can find legal protection in India against domestic violence.”