Domestic violence today is often committed through a phone rather than within four walls: spyware on a device, a seized email password, threats to circulate private photographs, relentless messages from new accounts, or a joint wallet quietly emptied. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was drafted broadly enough to cover this conduct, provided the application maps each act to the statutory definition and the prayers are framed to reach online behaviour.
The statute is technology-neutral
Section 3 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines domestic violence to include any act, omission, commission or conduct that harms, injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person. It expressly takes in verbal and emotional abuse — insults, ridicule, humiliation — and economic abuse, which covers deprivation of financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled. Nothing in the section confines abuse to conduct committed in person. A threat delivered over a messaging app, humiliation broadcast on a social platform, or financial deprivation effected by changing a password sits as comfortably within Section 3 as the same conduct committed face to face.
Mapping digital conduct to the definition
| Conduct | Head under Section 3 DV Act | Possible criminal overlap |
|---|---|---|
| Spyware, location tracking, covert reading of messages and emails | Emotional abuse; conduct endangering mental well-being | Section 78 BNS — stalking, which includes monitoring a woman's electronic communication (formerly Section 354D IPC) |
| Taking over email, banking or social media accounts; forced password disclosure | Emotional abuse; economic abuse where financial access is cut off | Provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 depending on the acts involved |
| Threats to share intimate images; actual circulation | Emotional and verbal abuse of an aggravated kind | Section 66E IT Act (privacy violation); Section 67 and Section 67A IT Act (obscene and sexually explicit material) |
| Abusive or degrading messages, including through friends or fresh accounts | Verbal and emotional abuse | Section 79 BNS (formerly Section 509 IPC) where modesty is insulted |
| Draining joint digital wallets, UPI-linked accounts or shared savings | Economic abuse | Depending on facts, offences relating to dishonest misappropriation may arise |
The table is illustrative, not exhaustive. What matters in drafting is that each incident is pleaded with its date, the platform or device involved, and the head of Section 3 it falls under, so the Magistrate is not left to infer the legal character of a long narrative.
Reliefs: Sections 18 to 22
The DV Act's civil reliefs apply to digital abuse exactly as they do to physical abuse. Section 18 protection orders can prohibit the respondent from committing any act of domestic violence and from attempting to communicate with the aggrieved person in any form whatsoever — and a prayer drafted with care will say so in terms: telephonic, electronic, written or oral communication, contact through social media including by creating new accounts or acting through third parties, and any uploading, sharing or threatening to share her images, videos or personal information.
Section 18 — Protection
Prohibitory directions against surveillance, communication, publication and impersonation. This is the primary tool against online conduct and should be drafted to cover indirect contact and new accounts.
Section 19 — Residence
Relevant where digital control accompanies control of the home; residence orders proceed on their usual footing alongside the digital-abuse allegations.
Section 20 — Monetary relief
Restores losses caused by economic abuse, including funds drained from joint wallets or accounts, and provides maintenance where support has been cut off by locking her out of accounts.
Section 22 — Compensation
Compensation for injuries including mental torture and emotional distress — a head directly engaged by sustained online humiliation and image-based threats.
Section 21 custody orders may also matter where children's devices or accounts are being used as instruments of surveillance or pressure. Interim orders are available at the first hearing in appropriate cases, which is often decisive where circulation of images is threatened.
Preserving the evidence before it disappears
Digital abuse cases are won or lost on preservation. Screenshots alone are a start, not an end.
Capture context, not just content: screenshots should show the sender's identifier, date and time, and the surrounding thread, not an isolated message cropped of context.
List the devices and accounts in the application itself: an annexed schedule of devices (with make and number), email addresses, social media handles and wallet or account identifiers fixes the factual landscape early and makes later denials harder.
Keep originals intact: do not delete the chats, factory-reset the phone, or let the account lapse. The device holding the original material should be preserved as it is.
Record financial abuse through statements: wallet transaction histories and bank statements downloaded promptly, with the relevant entries flagged, prove economic abuse far better than recollection.
Note takeovers immediately: password-reset emails, login-alert notifications and account-recovery records independently corroborate the takeover and when it happened.
Where intimate images have been shared or their circulation is threatened, platform grievance channels and the cybercrime reporting portal operate alongside, not instead of, the DV application. Urgent interim prayers under Section 18 should be moved without waiting for the platform's response.
Framing the application
Three drafting habits make a digital-abuse application effective. First, plead the relationship and the household in the ordinary way, then set out the digital incidents chronologically with particulars — vague references to "constant online harassment" invite equally vague orders. Second, tie each category of conduct to its head under Section 3, and where the conduct also discloses a cognisable offence, say so without converting the DV application into a charge-sheet. Third, draft the prayers so that the order will be enforceable against conduct that mutates: respondents blocked on one platform reappear on another, so the prohibition should run to communication and publication in any form and through any medium, including through persons acting at the respondent's behest. Breach of a protection order is itself a criminal offence under the Act, and a precisely worded order is what makes that sanction real.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is reading a spouse's messages or installing tracking software "domestic violence"?
It can be. Section 3 of the DV Act defines domestic violence to include emotional and verbal abuse and any conduct that harms or endangers the health, safety or well-being of the aggrieved person. Covert surveillance, device tracking and account takeover within a domestic relationship are routinely pleaded under this head, and monitoring of electronic communication can also fall within the criminal offence of stalking under Section 78 BNS (formerly Section 354D IPC).
Can a protection order under Section 18 cover online conduct?
Yes. Section 18 permits the Magistrate to prohibit the respondent from committing acts of domestic violence and from communicating with the aggrieved person in any form. A well-drafted prayer specifies electronic communication expressly: calls, messages, emails, social media contact including through third parties or new accounts, and any publication or circulation of the aggrieved person's images or personal information.
What criminal provisions overlap with digital abuse in a marriage?
Depending on the conduct: Section 78 BNS (stalking, which includes monitoring a woman's electronic communication), Section 79 BNS (word, gesture or act intended to insult modesty, formerly Section 509 IPC), and under the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 66E (violation of privacy through capturing or transmitting private images), Section 67 (publishing obscene material electronically) and Section 67A (sexually explicit material). A DV application and a criminal complaint can proceed in parallel.
Is emptying a joint digital wallet or UPI account covered by the DV Act?
Yes. Economic abuse under Section 3 includes deprivation of financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled. Draining joint wallets or accounts, changing credentials to lock her out, or diverting funds she relies upon can be pleaded as economic abuse, and monetary relief under Section 20 along with restorative directions can be sought.