FEMINIST MOVEMENTS IN INDIA have long since identified domestic violence as a structural violence rooted in unequal power structures within intimate and familial spaces. Instead of looking at abuse as a matter contained within the private space, the feminist legal critique has positioned it within a continuum upheld by patriarchal societal norms enforced through institutional practises that have given precedence to the preservation of family structures over women’s bodily autonomy & integrity.
Women seeking protection frequently encounter disbelief, moral scrutiny, and pressure to reconcile. Police responses often push for mediation, legal procedures are dragged out, and enforcement of relief measures remains uneven. Even progressive laws operate within institutional cultures shaped by gender hierarchy.*
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘PWDVA’) marked a decisive feminist intervention. The Domestic Violence Act expanded the limits of the legal framework and recognised domestic violence as a violation of civil rights. It thus created scope for civil remedies like – residence, maintenance, custody, protection & compensation. However, fundamental potential has always depended on steady implementation and sustained feminist engagement.
Why feminist solidarity is crucial
The PWDVA envisioned a coordinated, multi-agency response involving Protection Officers, police, courts, legal services authorities, shelter homes, service providers, and medical institutions. However, on ground feminist organisations across India were faced with systemic gaps and challenges like vacant Protection Officers post, lack of clarity regarding service provider registration, delays in service of summons, inconsistent judicial interpretation of residence rights, and limited institutional accountability for enforcement of maintenance and compensation orders.
Across varied socio-political and legal contexts, the common collective reflection was the striking similarity of the barriers faced by women irrespective of their varied demographics. Across metropolitan centres as well as remote districts, practitioners reported similar patterns of procedural delay, institutional lag, and resistance to survivor-centred interpretation. Implementation challenges were structural rather than incidental.
It was within this shared recognition that the AMAN Network—Global Voices for Peace in the Home, was formed on December 7, 2006.
AMAN conceived as a decentralised feminist network tied together with threads of solidarity, shared learning, and collective praxis. The collective stated that in-depth realisation of the PWDV Act required sustained cross state knowledge exchange, mapping and tracking of patterns and gaps, strategic engagement with statutory bodies and coordinated support systems for survivors that help in negotiating uneven responses.
AMAN Network’s journey alongside the Domestic Violence Act
At inception, AMAN articulated a vision of a world free from violence where dignity, equality, and rights are realised irrespective of gender. With its inception in 2006 as a non-funded network of eleven organisations across nine states, AMAN consisted of practitioners with similar commitments focused around: survivor autonomy, ethical counselling, rights based legal processes & understanding of domestic violence as a societal structural problem.
A defining feature of AMAN is its three-tier structure—state chapters, a national network, and an international presence. State-level chapters facilitate engagement with locally specific socio-political and legal realities, direct case assistance, and sustained interface with district-level institutions. The national level network consolidates state level insights into shared knowledge production, advocacy strategies, and strategic dialogue with Legal Service Authorities facilitating collective research, policy advocacy, and engagement with statutory bodies and ministries. The international presence allows AMAN to address cross-border cases, particularly in contexts of migration, transnational marriages, and diaspora communities, and to situate domestic violence within global human rights frameworks.
This layered organisational structure ensures that lived realities inform advocacy, while national and global engagement strengthens local enforcement.
Two decades later, AMAN stands as a nationwide and transnational collective of approximately 160 members across twenty states in India, along with organisations and individual membership. Its expansion reflects not only numerical growth but sustained institutional engagement and increasing influence in domestic violence jurisprudence.
Over time, the network has deepened its engagement with intersectionality. Members identify and articulate how caste hierarchies, religious identity, disability, sexuality, economic precarity, and geographic location shape women’s access to relief under the PWDVA. Survivors from marginalised communities face exponential barriers in securing residence rights, maintenance enforcement, and responsive policing. This intersectional lens informs AMAN’s referral mechanisms, legal strategies, and policy advocacy.
AMAN’s work today spans cross-border referrals, practitioner capacity building, documentation of implementation trends, engagement with State and District Legal Services Authorities, budget analysis, and policy dialogue with statutory commissions.
AMAN’s trajectory has been closely intertwined with the life of the PWDVA. With the shift from law making to law enforcement, AMAN facilitated systematic reflection on the Act’s operational realities.
Member organisations across states reported common challenges including delays in service of summons and repeated adjournments; vaguely drafted residence orders lacking enforcement clarity; uneven maintenance assessments; underutilisation of compensation under Section 22; and bureaucratic obstacles in registering service providers. Through structured dialogue, these shared observations evolved into coordinated legal strategies and sustained institutional engagement.
A significant achievement has been operationalising continuity of justice across jurisdictions. Domestic relationships often span across state borders and, at times, national borders. Through its state chapters and international linkages, AMAN forged referral pathways enabling survivors to pursue protection orders, maintenance claims, and representation across territorial boundaries giving practical effect to the Act’s territorial flexibility and reducing fragmentation in cross-jurisdictional cases.
AMAN’s engagement with statutory infrastructure has been strategic and sustained. Members have used Right to Information mechanisms to scrutinise Protection Officer appointments, shelter capacity, and fund utilisation; engaged Legal Services Authorities on case tracking and enforcement delays; and advocated with the National Commission for Women and other bodies for clearer implementation frameworks and dedicated budget allocations. These interventions reflect a sustained position that legal rights require administrative precision, fiscal commitment, and institutional monitoring to be realised in practice.
National and regional meetings held across cities including Kolkata, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Kangra, Pune, Lumbding, Bangalore, Lucknow, Jaipur, and Bhopal have functioned as forums for collective jurisprudential development. During these meetings, members have scrutinised trends in protection and residence orders, examined breach proceedings under Section 31, debated judicial reasoning, and addressed the marginalisation of compensation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, when violence intensified and institutional access narrowed, AMAN coordinated nationwide helpline databases, facilitated cross-state referrals, and undertook multi-state documentation of pandemic-linked abuse. These documentation findings informed advocacy before national institutions and international human rights platforms, underscoring the network’s capacity to convert grassroots evidence into coordinated policy intervention.
Through public hearings, ‘16 Days of Activism’ campaigns, and strategic media interventions, AMAN has consistently positioned domestic violence as a matter of public accountability. Over time, the network has helped shape the lived jurisprudence of the PWDVA by insisting on enforceability, accountability, and survivor agency.
Twenty years of the PWDVA: Achievements forged through feminist legal practice
The PWDVA reframed domestic violence as a matter of civil rights. By positioning civil reliefs like protection, residence, monetary support, custody, and compensation, the Act highlighted safety and economic stability alongside legal recognition.
Its quasi-civil framework amplified survivor choice, allowing civil remedies alongside criminal recourse in cases of breach. Protection extended beyond marital relationships to relationships in the nature of marriage and natal families. Recognition of emotional, verbal, sexual, and economic abuse provided legal vocabulary for harms long overlooked or normalised. The articulation of sexual violence within marriage for the first time, reshaped feminist counselling and litigation practice.
The right to reside in the shared household remains one of its most ground-breaking guarantees. Section 31 reinforced the binding force of protection orders, and salary attachment provisions strengthened maintenance enforcement, particularly in cases involving salaried government respondents.
These gains acquired meaning through long term feminist engagement. Trial courts, counselling centres, and community forums became a platform where practitioners insisted on enforceability and resisted mitigation of statutory intent. The history of the PWDVA is therefore inseparable from collective feminist practice.
Why we need collective action across States
Across AMAN’s membership, implementation of the PWDVA reflects uneven yet recognisable realities. Although institutional configurations vary from state to state, practitioners repeatedly confront the barriers that constrain the Act’s protective scope. The statutory promise of timely and enforceable civil remedies frequently clashes with administrative fragility and inconsistent institutional response.
In Tamil Nadu, where Protection Officers, One Stop Centres, and helplines are relatively well established, the primary challenge lies less in institutional absence and more in capacity constraints. Protection Officers have to frequently hold multiple portfolios and responsibilities, limiting sustained follow-up and compliance monitoring. Judicial delays undermine the objective of swift relief, and enforcement of maintenance and residence orders remain inconsistent. Institutional infrastructure has not automatically translated into durable accountability.
In Assam and other North-Eastern states, geography and administrative structuring significantly influence the process of implementation. Protection Officers are often drawn from broader welfare services, thereby reducing specialised intervention with domestic violence cases. Services concentrated at district headquarters remain inaccessible for women in remote areas. Grassroots organisations with longstanding casework experience encounter procedural barriers in service provider registration, thus limiting their formal participation in statutory processes.
In Madhya Pradesh and other central states, concerns centre on shelter accessibility, police sensitisation, and economic security. Shelter admission policies can be exclusionary, particularly for women with children. Police interventions frequently prioritise reconciliation over protection. Compensation is still viewed as discretionary rather than rights-based, and maintenance orders often fail to secure long-term stability, especially when women have to take responsibility of their children.
In metropolitan areas like Delhi and parts of Uttar Pradesh, legal infrastructure remains marked by procedural layering. Survivors are often required to move between multiple institutional sites like police stations, Crime Against Women Cells, Protection Officers, and courts, despite the Act’s objective to streamline access. Procedural requirements like the preparation of Domestic Incident Reports frequently contribute to delaying the process rather than facilitating the process.
Across the varied settings, AMAN members identify recurring enforcement gaps: vaguely drafted residence orders, fragmented follow-up on alternate accommodation, irregular maintenance compliance, and underuse of salary attachment provisions. Coordination between courts, police, Protection Officers, shelters, and health systems continue to be fragmented. As a result, the burden of ensuring enforcement frequently falls back on survivors themselves.
Challenges that continue to undermine the law
Cross-state experiences by AMAN’s network organisations reveal certain gaps in the government infrastructure that continue to challenge the Act’s true potential.
Foremost among the persistent challenges is delay in service of summons. Repeated adjournments, and extended pendency of interim applications contribute to drawn-out litigation. In several jurisdictions, procedural requirements like insistence on Domestic Incident Reports prior to substantive hearings operate as barriers to access rather than supporting it.
Additionally, because Protection Officers are administrative officials tasked with domestic violence duties alongside other administrative duties, monitoring, coordination and evaluation frequently weakens the process. Lack of designated staff and clearly defined oversight structures undermine the possibility of an integrated institutional response.
Similarly, residence rights and economic remedies further falter at the stage of enforcement. Orders are often imprecise, alternate accommodation remains limited and weakly framed, and compensation is often treated as ancillary rather than central. Maintenance often requires repeated pursuit. There is also inconsistent application of salary attachment provisions. Resultantly, the security framework under the Act suffers at the time of implementation.
Finally, weak coordination across agencies like courts, police, health institutions, and legal services authorities undermines coherent implementation. When executive bodies of the government like that of the police focus on reconciliation rather than implementation of the law it further diminishes the reliefs guaranteed under the statutory protections listed under the law - maintenance, residence or protection order. Further, inconsistent documentation on the part of government service providers and executive bodies; and fragmented information sharing amongst stakeholders further pose a challenge to the smooth implementation of the law.
Our work cross cutting state boundaries clearly shows that implementation gaps are structural rather than episodic. This collective acknowledgement, built over two decades of documentation and practice adds to the network’s ongoing advocacy for accountability and reform.
Ways forward: Reclaiming the feminist promise of the PWDVA
As the PWDVA enters its third decade, realising its feminist vision demands structural consolidation and sustained political commitment to implementation.
First, Protection Officer systems require stabilisation through full-time appointments, clearly defined roles, regular gender-sensitive training, and transparent monitoring of pendency and enforcement rates. Domestic violence responsibilities should not be clubbed with other portfolios. Accountability mechanisms need to include periodic reporting on service of summons, compliance with protection orders, and follow-up on maintenance.
Second, residence rights must be operationalised with precision and judicial oversight. Orders should detail the scope of residence within the shared household and provide guidelines for enforceable timelines. Courts must assume responsibility for monitoring compliance rather than transferring enforcement burdens onto survivors. Where alternate accommodation is granted, structured mechanisms should safeguard housing continuity.
Third, compensation under Section 22 must be treated as a substantive right than a discretionary supplement. It should account for the economic harm suffered and the long-term impact of violence. Judicial guidelines for quantification of compensation require strengthening and salary attachment provisions should be invoked consistently where respondents are stable salaried government employees. Complementary State-supported compensation frameworks could mitigate survivors’ dependence on respondent’s compliance.
Fourth, service providers should be fully embedded within implementation structures. Registration procedures must be streamlined, and sustained funding ensured, especially for grassroots organisations in rural and remote contexts. Expansion of institutional mechanisms like One Stop Centres should not displace autonomous feminist service providers with established casework expertise.
Fifth, inter-agency coordination must be institutionalised through formal protocols enabling effective communication amongst courts, police, Protection Officers, health systems, and legal services authorities. Information-sharing duties and compliance monitoring require systemisation in terms of Standard Operating Procedures. Further, gender-sensitisation efforts should be complemented by measurable accountability indicators.
Conclusion
Twenty years of the PWDVA make it clear that legislation alone does not assure justice. Its success depends on correct implementation, interpretation and must be upheld in everyday application.
AMAN Network’s long journey alongside the Act has shown that collective feminist engagement can strengthen enforcement, confront institutional gaps, and sustain survivor-centred interpretation across states. As the Act enters its third decade, we must prioritise consistently - correct enforcement, address institutional lacuna, and uphold feminist promise in practice.
Case Study: Cross-State Collaboration and the Role of the AMAN Network
Some of the structural challenges discussed above become most clear in cases that span state boundaries and expose gaps in institutional coordination.
For example, in the case of Madhu, who sought support from Swayam, an AMAN Network member organisation in West Bengal, highlighted why inter-state feminist coordination is necessary for successful enforcement of the PWDVA. After enduring prolonged physical, psychological, and economic abuse, Madhu sought safety in West Bengal while divorce proceedings, streedhan recovery, and retaliatory criminal cases were initiated against her in Muzaffarpur, Bihar. The parallel litigations across jurisdictions generated legal and logistical complexities heightening her vulnerability and diluting her claims.
As Swayam is a member of the AMAN Network, the case was supported through coordinated engagement with partner organisations in Bihar. The collaboration ensured on-ground legal accompaniment, procedural guidance, and assistance with streedhan recovery, enabling Madhu to navigate unfamiliar courts without isolation. The presence of AMAN organisations in both states preserved continuity across proceedings and mitigated the strain of multi-jurisdiction court proceedings.
Although Madhu secured interim maintenance under the PWDVA, enforcement delays and retaliatory criminal complaints against her natal family and herself intensified the pressure. Through strategic coordination, AMAN members aligned legal responses across forums, tracked procedural developments and minimised the risk of contradictory outcomes.
Madhu’s experience illustrates that effective implementation of PWDVA cannot remain confined to localised intervention. Where violence and legal proceedings traverse state boundaries, networked feminist collaboration becomes critical to secure sustained protection and continued delivery of justice.
Notes:
*See Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. A litigation Guide & Compilation of Judgements. Researched & Written by: Shikha Siliman Bhattacharjee. Edited by: Abhijit Datta & Anuradha Kapoor. Read here.
This article has been compiled by Shayori Banjerjee on behalf of AMAN Network.
