[This Article is authored by Anubhuti Singh, 2nd Year student at Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.]

Evolving Dimensions of Domestic Violence: From Physical to Digital Realms

The Indian law’s traditional understanding of domestic abuse has revolved around marks of physical injury, dowry violence, and male cruelty towards wives. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, talk about this aspect. However, with the ubiquity of digital technologies, that happens in the social world more than in the physical world, violence from intimate partners can extend beyond the home. Smartphones, social media applications, and banking apps have become new means of violence: cyber-stalking, surveillance through spyware, leaks of intimate photos and disturbances through banking apps. As Bridget Woodlock states, “technology reshapes patterns of coercive control and allows abusers to reach women any time they want, wherever they want”.

These harms are neither marginal nor hidden. In 2021, the National Crime Records Bureau reported 52,974 cybercrime cases, of which more than 14,000 were victims of “friends, online friends, or live-in partners under the pretext of marriage.” Additionally, there were nearly a thousand cases where the perpetrator was a family member. Such statistics indicate that online abuse may occur with strangers, but it is most often committed by those close to the victim. UNFPA warns that “violence of this nature is effectively recreating the same structures of domination in the digital world…the law was developed to try to dismantle” in its offline meaning.

The Law on Cruelty and Domestic Violence in India: What It Covers and What It Misses

Indian law acknowledges cruelty, but statutes reflect older paradigms. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code 1860 penalises cruelty by either the husband or his family members and specifically addresses cruelty related to dowry and behaviour that drives women to suicide. This section often addresses physical violence or dowry violence, but rarely digital abuse.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) expanded on this definition in that it goes beyond physical cruelty to include civil remedies for emotional, sexual, and economic abuse. However, the legislation is silent on emerging harms in regard to the development of further language around digital violence concerning harm in connection to digital monitoring, sharing images without capacity to consent, or digital coercion. As the Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) report pointed out, the legislation fails to make any express reference to digital forms of harm and abuse, and puts survivors in a position of living through harm.

The Information Technology Act 2000 covers a variety of cyber crimes, including identity theft under s 66C, privacy violations through (non-consensual) image or video of oneself under s 66E, and publishing obscene material under s 67. While these are useful provisions, they do not specifically address the issue of intimate partner abuse, nor do they provide domestic violence-type protections, like protection or restraining orders, in a digital context.

In the realm of judicial decisions, Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) is noteworthy; the Supreme Court ordered promulgation of guidelines to contain the misuse of Section 498A. It specifically emphasised that arrests should not be made mechanically and that appropriate preliminary checks must be done prior to arresting an alleged abuser. This case identifies the courts’ acknowledgement of the expansive application of Section 498A, but still does not necessarily include cruelty in digital forms.

Recent research adds to the evidence that marks non-consensual image-based harassment as a new and growing instance of gender-based harm in India; meanwhile, some research finds that “electronic empowerment” for women,  i.e., being in control of their own devices/communication, was correlated with lower reports of controlling behaviours by intimate partners.

Thus, survivors of online abuse are forced to navigate several legal regimes (like IPC, PWDVA, IT Act) without any clear guidance or information. Legal provisions remain incomplete until these silos are bridged.

The Expanding Face of Intimate Partner Violence in the Digital Age

The rise of the digital age has provided new avenues for individuals who commit intimate partner violence (IPV). As a result, reports of cyberstalking, tracking of GPS coordinates, interception of text messages, and accessing social media accounts without consent have become increasingly common. Additionally, those who perpetrate digital financial abuse use online banking, payment applications, and internet banking to restrict victims from accessing their money and tracking their purchases. Digital financial abuse has emerged as an innovative approach to strategy within IPV.

Threats of non-consensual pornography and sextortion weaponise trust to create silence and submission. Closed messaging groups on platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram allow for this abuse, as morphed images or defamatory messages have already been posted to publicly shame the survivor. Despite an increase in online harassment cases, many women in India hesitate to report incidents due to concerns over privacy and potential retaliation.

Judicial systems are steadily responding to the changing times. The case of State of West Bengal v Animesh Boxi is an example of this trend, wherein a man was found guilty by the Calcutta High Courtof the crime of creating an imaginary Facebook profile of a woman; this case establishes that any injury caused to someone’s reputation should be considered an offence. The case of Doe v Hofstetter is another illustration, wherein the United States Court recognised in 2012 that cyberstalking was a form of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and stated that “abuse moved along with technology”. Both cases show that there is an increasing awareness within the Courts of Online Abuse as part of an ongoing reality of Domestic Violence/IPV, rather than it being viewed as an isolated event or happening that occurs as an extension of the physical realm.

From a sociological perspective, this type of digital abuse is representative of what Sylvia Walby calls “patriarchal restructuring”; while an indirect form of male power continues to exist, it is also shaping the traditional male structure into a digital space. However, survivors are struggling with issues of evidentiary burdens (deleted chats, encrypted servers), jurisdictional issues, and the indifference found in agencies such as the police, leaving many trapped in the cycle of coercion.

Comparative Insights: How Other Jurisdictions Recognise Tech-Enabled Abuse

Across common law and mixed legal systems, jurisdictions are increasingly starting to recognise that technology-facilitated abuse is part of a coercive control continuum—not a separate digital offence.

In the United Kingdom, Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 created the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour in intimate relationships. Courts interpret controlling behaviour broadly to include monitoring, harassment, and abuse via digital means. The Domestic Abuse Bill (drafted) explicitly identified that abusive behaviour could be through “electronic means” (for example, through social media, messaging or tracking). As POST Parliament noted that while no single offence of ‘domestic abuse’ exists, potential offences of coercive behaviour, including tech-enabled, can be prosecuted.

Across Australia, some states and territories have changed domestic violence frameworks to include a concept of “technology-facilitated abuse” or “digital coercive control” in their definitions of domestic violence or family violence. The eSafety Commissioner’s description of technology-facilitated abuse includes surveillance, non-consensual access, doxxing, threats, and impersonation. A 2024 study reported how courts refused to consider digital evidence, such as USB evidence, in magistrates’ courts.”

In the United States, many states have specific “revenge porn” or non-consensual pornography statutes to criminalise the dissemination of intimate partner sexual images or videos without consent. It has been pointed out that state laws for non-consensual pornography are increasingly seen as part of the continuum of intimate partner cyber harassment. However, the U.S. does not have a national law for prohibiting coercive control; thus, protections vary by state.

In contrast, India’s legal system is still firmly rooted in an analogue conception of cruelty, and few provisions explicitly contemplate some form of digital abuse of power or control. While the IPC, PWDVA, and IT Act exist in isolation within different regimes, they do not collectively contemplate a pattern-based view of technology-related abuse as domestic violence. Broadening its definitions in a timely manner is in the interest of India, considering the worldwide best practices.

Towards a Legal Redefinition of Domestic Violence in India

Addressing digital abuse requires a multifaceted legal redefinition. For instance, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (2005) must specifically include “technology-facilitated abuse” within the definitions for emotional, sexual, and economic abuse so that any form of digital behaviour is covered in the domestic realm of law.

The proceedings under the PWDVA, 2005, should be taken as the primary remedial forum, with the conduct punishable under the IPC and the IT Act being relied upon to demonstrate patterns of coercive control and thereby justify technology-specific protection orders. The judiciary must develop guidelines to ease evidentiary standards, allowing individuals to bring evidence, such as screenshots and chatbacks, metadata, and logs from cloud sharing services, while only requiring ordinary means of verification.

Police, prosecutors, and judges must treat digital coercion the same as if it involved physical force – they must be trained in laws regarding cyberstalking, non-consensual image dissemination, and economic abuse. Digital cruelty may not leave painful marks, but it runs deep – the law needs to stretch and remake notions of domestic violence for a digital era.