Should the Second Wife Be Impleaded in Domestic Violence Cases? A Legal Analysis

 The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been a crucial legislation in safeguarding women's rights. However, questions often arise regarding the scope of parties who can be impleaded in proceedings under this Act, particularly when allegations involve a second marriage. This article examines the legal position on whether a second wife should be made a party to domestic violence proceedings initiated by the first wife.

The Core Legal Question

When a wife files a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act alleging that her husband has performed a second marriage, courts frequently grapple with whether the second wife should be included as a respondent in the proceedings. This question touches upon fundamental principles of the Act and requires careful judicial consideration.

Judicial Precedent: Second Marriage Alone Not Domestic Violence

The Bombay High Court has provided crucial clarity on this matter, establishing that merely performing a second marriage after divorce does not constitute domestic violence under Section 3 of the DV Act. The court explicitly observed that "merely because the applicant No.1 performing a second marriage cannot come within the definition of domestic violence under Section 3 of the D.V. Act."

This precedent establishes an important distinction between the act of remarriage and actual domestic violence, preventing the misuse of the Act for matters that fall outside its intended scope.

Essential Prerequisites Under the DV Act

Domestic Relationship Requirement

For any person to be made a respondent under the DV Act, the legislation mandates that two essential conditions must be satisfied:

1. Domestic relationship: The person must be related to the aggrieved person as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act

2. Shared household: The parties must have actually lived together in a shared household

Supreme Court's Emphasis on Actual Cohabitation

The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that mere relation by marriage or blood is insufficient. The apex court has made it clear that actual shared living arrangements must be established for maintaining proceedings under the DV Act. This requirement prevents the arbitrary inclusion of parties who have no real connection to the domestic setup.

Judicial Warnings Against Misuse

Supreme Court's Caution in Ashish Dixit Case

In the landmark case of Ashish Dixit vs. State of UP, the Supreme Court issued a stern warning against the misuse of the DV Act. The court held that a wife cannot implicate one and all in a domestic violence case merely to harass the husband's family.

Pattern of Abuse Identified

The judiciary has noted a concerning pattern where aggrieved parties implicate relatives and other family members without proper grounds, even when such persons never shared a household with the complainant. This practice transforms the protective legislation into a tool of harassment rather than justice.

Conclusion: Balancing Protection and Prevention of Misuse

The legal position on impleading second wives in domestic violence proceedings reflects a careful balance between protecting genuine victims and preventing the misuse of protective legislation. Simply alleging that the husband performed a second marriage is insufficient grounds to make the second wife a party to the proceedings.

Print Page