Among the first objections raised in many domestic violence proceedings is the status of the parties: the marriage has been dissolved, so — the respondent argues — there is no "domestic relationship" and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not apply. The objection misreads the statute. The Act's definitions look to whether the parties have lived together in a shared household, not whether they still do, and the Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2022, decided on 12 May 2022, has held that a subsisting cohabitation is not a precondition for relief. This explainer sets out what a divorced or separated woman can still claim, what she cannot, and how Delhi courts approach the question.
The statutory text points backward as well as forward
Three definitions carry the weight. An "aggrieved person" under Section 2(a) is a woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges domestic violence. A "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) exists between persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. And "shared household" under Section 2(s) includes a household the aggrieved person has lived in with the respondent in a domestic relationship. The past tense is not an accident of drafting — it is the Act\'s answer to the argument that separation or divorce closes the door.
What the Supreme Court settled in Prabha Tyagi
No subsisting cohabitation needed
It is not mandatory for the aggrieved person to have been living with the respondents when the application is filed; the domestic relationship concept embraces past living arrangements.
Right to reside is expansive
Under Section 17(1), every woman in a domestic relationship has the right to reside in the shared household regardless of title, and the right is not confined to actual residence — constructive residence counts.
No DIR is required to start
Where the woman files directly or through counsel, the Magistrate need not await a Domestic Incident Report; the proviso to Section 12(1) applies only when a DIR has been received from a Protection Officer or service provider.
Mapping the reliefs after the marriage ends
| Relief | Provision | Position after divorce/separation |
|---|---|---|
| Protection order | Section 18 | Available where acts of domestic violence are shown and protection is needed against continuing harassment. |
| Residence order | Sections 17, 19 | Fact-sensitive: the claim relates to the shared household of the past relationship, and divorce-settlement terms, alternative accommodation and current occupation all weigh in the balance. |
| Monetary relief | Section 20 | Available for losses and expenses attributable to the violence; maintenance components interact with orders under other laws and with any settlement. |
| Compensation | Section 22 | Available for injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by acts committed during the relationship. |
| Reliefs for children | Sections 20, 21 | A child\'s claims are independent and are not defeated by the parents\' divorce or by waivers the mother gave for herself. |
The limits: what post-divorce applications cannot do
- No retrospective relationship. The Act presupposes a shared household at some point; it gives no remedy where none ever existed.
- No revival of waived claims. Monetary claims consciously relinquished in a comprehensive settlement cannot be re-routed through a fresh DV application.
- No substitute for matrimonial remedies. Questions of the divorce itself, permanent alimony under matrimonial statutes, and custody in the full sense belong to their own forums; the DV Act supplements, it does not replace.
- Delay invites scrutiny. There is no rigid limitation for seeking civil reliefs, but a long-unexplained gap between the relationship\'s end and the application affects credibility and interim relief.
Practice notes for Delhi proceedings
Applications under Section 12 are filed before the Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the aggrieved person resides, works, or where the respondent resides or the cause of action arose — a venue flexibility that survives the divorce. Pleadings should anchor each relief to specific acts committed during the relationship, with dates, and should squarely disclose any settlement or matrimonial litigation, since suppression is the fastest route to dismissal. Respondents, for their part, should resist the reflex of a maintainability objection built only on the decree of divorce: after Prabha Tyagi, the contest is won or lost on the evidence of violence and on the effect of settlements, not on the subsistence of the marriage.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. The availability of particular reliefs depends on the facts, the settlement history and the orders already passed between the parties.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the DV Act require the parties to be living together when the case is filed?
No. Section 2(f) defines a domestic relationship as one between persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. In Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022), the Supreme Court held it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person to be actually living with the respondents when relief is sought, and that the definition takes in past living arrangements.
Can a DV application be filed for acts committed before the divorce?
Yes. Violence committed while the domestic relationship subsisted remains actionable even after the marital tie has ended, because the application vindicates rights arising from that earlier relationship. What the Act does not cover is conduct between strangers with no past shared household at all.
What reliefs remain realistic after divorce?
Monetary relief under Section 20 for losses and expenses flowing from the violence, compensation under Section 22, protection orders under Section 18 where harassment continues, and reliefs for children under the Act. Residence claims under Sections 17 and 19 turn on the facts: the right to reside relates to the shared household of the domestic relationship, and the terms of the divorce and any settlement will weigh heavily.
Does a settlement at the time of divorce bar a later DV case?
A genuine, comprehensive settlement in which claims were given up is a serious obstacle: courts do not permit relinquished monetary claims to be re-agitated through fresh DV proceedings. A DV application after settlement must rest on rights that were not surrendered — for instance, a child's independent claims, or new acts of violence after the settlement.