counselling under Domestic violence Act

What is the objective of counseling? At what stages can 
counseling be done?
Section 14 of the PWDVA allows the Magistrate to give an order 
for counseling, to be undergone either singly or jointly by the 
parties, at any stage of the proceedings. At the commencement 
of legal action, the aggrieved woman and the perpetrator are in 
an unequal situation. Hence no joint counseling maybe possible 
in that situation, without the risk of further disempowering the 
AP.    Counselling can take place at the pre-litigative and litigative 
stages of proceedings. At the pre-litigative stage, counseling 
would aim at restoring the aggrieved woman’s self esteem, dignity, 
provide psychological support to her and facilitate her to decide 
whether or not to pursue a legal recourse. At the litigative stage, 
counseling would be aimed at getting the perpetrator to give an 
undertaking not to inflict further domestic violence. This form 
of counseling is important in re-establishing “basic trust and a 
sense of safety” for the woman facing domestic violence.


 The 
overall objective of counseling as envisaged under this law is to 
prevent any further acts of violence from being perpetrated. In 
cases where joint counseling is ordered, the proceedings take

on the complexion of a mediation process. However, Rule 14 
specifies that settlements are to be attempted only at the behest of 
the aggrieved person.

 Is counseling compulsory under the PWDVA? Would an AP 
be forced to return to a violent home through the procedure of 
counseling?
As per Rule 14 of the PWDVA, parties can be referred by the 
court for counseling to arrive at a court-mediated settlement 
only if the aggrieved woman desires. The procedure for and 
during counseling has been stated in Rule 14. It states that 
counseling should be carried out by qualified members of 
registered Service Providers. The detailed rules are intended at 
ensuring that no aggrieved woman is coerced into counseling 
and subsequently a settlement. The AP cannot be forced to go for 
mediation before seeking the legal remedies such as protection 
and residence orders. In situations of grave violence which cause 
danger to the aggrieved woman’s physical and mental health, if 
the court insists on counseling first, such an approach would 
undermine the purpose for which the PWDVA has been enacted 
– to provide prompt relief to women facing domestic violence. 
It is the responsibility of the concerned advocate(s) to advance 
arguments on behalf of the woman if the court directs counseling 
in such circumstances.
In a case before the Kerala High Court, where the parties 
were involved in eleven litigations against each other before 
different fora, in view of the worsening relations between 
the parties, the court appointed a conciliator to enable the 
parties to settle the disputes between them. Upon arriving at 
a settlement, the court said: 

“In the light of the discussions the court and the conciliator 
had between the parties and thanks to the cooperation 
extended by the learned counsel appearing on both sides, 
it is   heartening to note that peace could be purchased not 
only between the parties to the marriage, but also between 
the families of both parties. True, they have agreed to 
disagree. But we could convince them that on disagreement 
also, the parties to the marriage can still be friends. For the 
only reason that the   matrimonial bond is terminated and 
the marriage is dissolved, the parties to the marriage need 
not be strangers and enemies; they can still continue to be 
friends, and they have to continue as good friends in this 
case for the additional reason that they have a child. 
(para 3)
– T. Vineed vs. Manju S. Nair 2008 (1) KLJ 525
In the Kerala High Court judgment highlighted above, the court 
was of the opinion that an attempt should first be made at courtmediated settlement before commencing the legal proceedings. 
As discussed by Lawyers Collective, the intention of the court 
in this judgment was to prevent further hostilities between the 
parties, avoiding multiplicity of litigations and arriving at an 
amicable settlement of all pending issues between the parties. 
While this is desirable, conciliation may not be the viable and 
standard practice in all cases under the PWDVA. In cases of 
domestic violence in grave forms, prioritizing conciliation could 
have the effect of compromising the safety, security and dignity 
of the aggrieved woman and forcing her back into the violent 
home.