New Delhi: P*, a domestic violence survivor, found herself in a dire situation after being attacked, injured and abandoned at her parents’ house while she was two months pregnant.
Desperate for support, she filed a complaint under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 in 2023. Since then, P has given birth and is now struggling to care for her one-year-old infant while battling postpartum depression.
Coming from a low-income household with no means of earning a livelihood, she urgently needs financial assistance from her husband for the sustenance of both herself and her child.
Despite repeated attempts to contact her husband, P has received no money.
The trial court issued summons to P’s husband, who lives in Faridabad, but he has evaded the family and the summons for over a year, leaving the case at a standstill. The next available legal recourse is to proceed ex-parte, where the court moves forward without the presence of the husband, a time-consuming process.
In case of such urgent remedies sought under the domestic violence law, some trial courts have also been issuing warrants to secure the presence of parties in legal proceedings.
But in January 2025, the Supreme Court ruled there was no justification for trial courts to issue such warrants, since such proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, meaning they have characteristics of both civil and criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court emphasised that these proceedings do not have penal consequences unless there is a violation or breach of a protection order.
Four months later, the Supreme Court in May 2025 held that high courts could quash complaints under the domestic violence law in extraordinary circumstances, similar to how they can quash criminal cases under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023.
These rulings raise questions about the legal correctness of the Supreme Court’s decision on warrants and whether it undermines the very purpose of the domestic violence law.
It also results in a legal murkiness over the applicability of criminal process in proceedings under the domestic violence law, with uneven precedents now applicable to survivors and defendants.
The domestic violence law is a beneficial legislation, similar to section 125 of the CrPC and section 144 of the BNSS, which aim to provide timely relief, including monetary and protection to women facing domestic violence.
By restricting the use of warrants in domestic violence proceedings, the decision of the Supreme Court may hinder the effectiveness of the law in providing swift assistance to victims.
Warrants Are Important
Warrants serve as a critical enforcement tool in cases where husbands evade court proceedings, particularly when financial neglect leaves women and children in precarious situations.
A justice system that allows repeated non-compliance without consequence reinforces regressive power structures, where men can simply ignore legal obligations with impunity, leaving women without recourse.
Graduated warrant mechanisms, starting with bailable warrants and escalating to non-bailable ones, provide necessary intervention to compel accountability.
The main critique against warrants is that it amounts to “process as punishment”, since it penalises individuals before conviction.
However, pre-trial procedures serve legitimate State interests, including protecting victims, ensuring case progression, and upholding the authority of the court.
Judicial systems have built-in safeguards to minimise undue hardship, such as graduated enforcement and bail conditions tailored to the individual’s risk and history of compliance.
The alternative of permitting repeated non-appearance without consequence not only delays compliance of lawful orders, but also sends a message of impunity, particularly harmful in cases involving vulnerable survivors.
What ultimately distinguishes necessary procedural enforcement from punitive overreach is ensuring that it is implemented with proportionality, due process, and accountability.
While due regard must be had against over-reliance on carceral measures, warrants in these cases are not about excessive punishment but about ensuring access to justice for vulnerable women.
Without strong enforcement mechanisms, legal rights such as maintenance and child support become meaningless. The failure to act against persistent evasion reinforces economic violence, trapping women in cycles of dependency and vulnerability.
By issuing warrants, courts signal that financial abandonment is not a private dispute but a serious legal violation, ensuring that legal obligations are met and justice is secured.
Limitations Of The Law
The domestic violence law has only one penal provision, which is punishment for violating a protection order passed by the magistrate.
As a quasi-criminal legislation, there are several indications throughout the law that demonstrate legislative intent that allows magistrates to use procedure laid down in the CrPC for the main complaint and all interim reliefs of the domestic violence law. This includes issuing warrants to ensure compliance of orders under the domestic violence law.
First, despite being civil in nature, the domestic violence law is procedurally filed and listed as a criminal case under the CrPC and now the BNSS. Section 2 of the DV Act defines a “magistrate”, in front of whom the complaint has to be filed, as a judicial magistrate of the first class or a metropolitan magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the CrPC.
Second, section 28 of the domestic violence law states that all the main proceedings under the law, including the primary complaint and interim reliefs, will be governed by the provisions of CrPC.
This section also says the court has the discretion to lay down its own procedure to decide on these complaints and applications for interim reliefs using the CrPC, to carry out its duties under the domestic violence law.
Third, the domestic violence law mandates that all interim relief, particularly monetary relief and residence orders, be complied with and executed according to the CrPC.
A Case Study
The case of S*, a domestic violence survivor, illustrates how courts should adapt their procedures based on the situation faced by the survivor.
S faced extreme physical and mental abuse by her husband and was thrown out of her matrimonial home, leaving her homeless, taking shelter with an NGO. She approached the Court for obtaining an order to rightfully reinstate her in her matrimonial home.
Her husband, an auto driver, made all efforts to evade the summons of the court by locking his house during the day and only returning to sleep there at night. To reinstate S back into her matrimonial home, the court issued an interim residence order and then issued a bailable warrant, giving S’s husband a chance to appear before the court.
When he continued to evade lawful process, the court escalated its response by issuing a non-bailable warrant. S*’s husband was brought to court and made to understand the protection order and the interim residence order.
Without the issuance of warrants, giving effect to an interim residence order would have been difficult.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules (DV Rules) 2006 further strengthened the application of criminal procedure to proceedings under the domestic violence law.
Rule 6 of the DV Rules states that applications under the domestic violence law shall be dealt with and orders enforced in the same manner as under section 125 of the CrPC/section 144 of the BNSS.
However, there is a key difference between these sections and the domestic violence law. While section 125 of the CrPC and section 144 of the BNSS are more limited in nature, specifying when warrants can be issued, rule 12(2) of the DV Rules provides a broader scope.
It states that for serving any notice or summon under the domestic violence law, the provisions of Chapter VI of the CrPC, outlining the procedure to compel attendance, may be adopted as far as practicable.
The court has the authority to direct any additional steps necessary to expedite proceedings and adhere to the time limits set forth in the domestic violence law. This flexibility allows courts to adapt their procedures to the unique circumstances of each case, ensuring that domestic violence survivors receive relief and protection, especially while seeking interim orders.
These provisions highlight the legislative intent to not only apply criminal procedure to the domestic violence law but also give magistrates the power to make their own procedure to ensure swift action and time-sensitive reliefs for survivors of domestic violence.
If courts are not permitted to issue warrants to secure the presence of respondents, it would lead to injustice and undermine the legislative intent behind the domestic violence law.
Inadequacy Of Ex-Parte Proceedings
Ex-parte proceedings, in which the court proceeds without the presence of the respondent, are far from a timely solution for victims seeking relief under the DV Act.
Once an order to proceed ex-parte is issued, the court must then navigate through several stages, including gathering evidence, hearing arguments, and pronouncing a judgment.
Consider the case of A*, a domestic worker with five children, who filed a case under the DV Act against her husband in 2019.
Since her husband evaded summons and refused to appear, the matter proceeded ex-parte, without him. In 2023, A finally obtained a judgment in her favour to get Rs 25,000 maintenance every month from her husband for herself and her children.
However, to ensure that her husband complied with the judgement, she had to begin what are called execution proceedings before the same court.
During its pendency, her husband appealed against the judgement for being ex parte in nature and secured a stay from the appellate court.
It took A almost a year to have the appeal dismissed, and now her execution is moving forward. Nearly six years have passed, and she has not received a single penny of support from her husband, defeating the very purpose of seeking relief under the domestic violence law.
An Arduous Task
The process of securing ex-parte orders is inherently time-consuming, often stretching from six months to two years, depending on the efficiency and the caseload of the respective court.
Even after the arduous task of securing a judgment, the journey of the complainant is not over. To enforce the orders of the court for maintenance and compensation, the complainant must embark on yet another legal process by filing execution proceedings.
Continued non-appearance at this stage reinstates the need to issue warrants and further prolongs the wait for relief.
Magistrates are often reluctant to pass any interim orders for maintenance without the presence of the husband, preferring instead to finally decide the matter. This approach, while thorough, can leave victims in a precarious financial situation, as they must await the conclusion of proceedings before receiving any monetary support.
Ex-parte judgments also face the risk of being challenged, in the absence of adhering to the principles of natural justice, causing further delays.
Such proceedings, though an available recourse when respondents fail to appear, are not an adequate substitute for the timely relief that the domestic violence law seeks to provide.
The lengthy process and the reluctance of magistrates to pass interim maintenance orders, leaves survivors vulnerable and without the swift assistance they need.
In an ideal legal framework, carceral remedies in quasi-criminal legislations would be unnecessary. However, given the realities of enforcement, courts must rely on available tools to secure appearance and compliance, particularly for interim orders, which address urgent and immediate needs.
By denying courts this essential authority given to them by the legislature, we risk leaving countless survivors of domestic violence in a state of prolonged suffering, their lives hanging in the balance as they navigate lengthy and complex legal proceedings.
*Identities withheld
(Aparimita Pratap and Ankita Sarkar are lawyers working at the Migration and Asylum Project for their Gender Equality and Empowerment Programme.)
Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.