I understand how emotionally tangled domestic violence cases can become. By the time a case reaches evidence, a couple may have reconciled, families may be pushing for peace, or witnesses may feel pressure from one side. You may be the woman who filed the complaint, a parent, sibling or neighbour who supported her, or a relative of the husband. Before you change your account, you need to understand what happens when someone becomes a hostile witness in a Domestic Violence Act case. The answer depends on whether your case is a civil application for relief or a true criminal prosecution, and in both, changing your testimony has consequences.

Let me first clarify the nature of the proceedings. Most cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are applications under Section 12 seeking reliefs such as protection orders under Section 18, residence orders under Section 19, monetary relief under Section 20, custody orders under Section 21 and compensation under Section 22. In Kamatchi v. Lakshmi Narayanan (2022), the Supreme Court held that a Section 12 application is not a criminal complaint, and that the limitation for criminal prosecutions does not apply to it. These proceedings are largely civil in nature, although they are heard by a magistrate.

The truly criminal part of the Act is limited. Section 31 makes breach of a protection order or interim protection order by the respondent an offence, punishable with imprisonment up to one year, or fine up to twenty thousand rupees, or both. Section 33 penalises a Protection Officer who fails to perform his duties. In practice, DV cases also often run alongside criminal cases for cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), formerly Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and for criminal breach of trust over stridhan under Section 316 BNS, formerly Section 406 IPC.

The Supreme Court has shaped these proceedings significantly. In Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (2016), it removed the "adult male" restriction, allowing women relatives to be respondents. In Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja (2020), it held that a woman can claim residence in the shared household even if it belongs to her in-laws. In Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury (2016), it recognised stridhan claims under the Act as continuing.

Now, what happens in a Section 12 case if the aggrieved woman turns hostile? Because the proceedings are for her own relief, she can simply withdraw her application if she no longer wants to pursue it. That is the honest and lawful route. If instead she testifies that no violence occurred, the magistrate will usually decline to grant relief. Interim orders passed under Section 23 may be vacated, and the court can alter or revoke orders under Section 25.

There can be financial consequences too. If she received interim maintenance under Section 23 and then denies the basis of her claim, the respondent may seek recovery of amounts paid, and courts have in some cases considered such requests. Adverse findings on her credibility may also affect related maintenance, divorce or custody proceedings. This is another reason a clean withdrawal or settlement is usually safer than denial.

The evidence in DV proceedings is often documentary. Under Section 28(2), the magistrate may lay down his own procedure, and evidence is frequently taken on affidavit. The Domestic Incident Report prepared by the Protection Officer under Section 9 and considered under Section 12, medical records, photographs, messages and police complaints all form part of the record. A witness who swore an affidavit supporting the woman and now denies it faces the same risks as any witness who contradicts sworn testimony.

Now the criminal prosecution under Section 31. If the respondent is prosecuted for breaching a protection order, and the aggrieved woman turns hostile, the prosecution may struggle to prove the breach. But other evidence may exist, such as police records, messages, CCTV or neighbours' testimony. A hostile witness is one whose testimony departs from earlier statements, and the prosecutor may cross-examine them with the court's permission under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now Section 157 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA).

Section 31 is a special-law offence and is not among the compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Cruelty under Section 85 BNS is also generally non-compoundable. Where parties have genuinely settled, the High Court may quash such proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), the Supreme Court recognised that matrimonial disputes are often appropriate for quashing on settlement. Criminal breach of trust under Section 316 BNS is compoundable by the woman as owner of the property.

Earlier statements can be used against a hostile witness. Police statements under Section 161 CrPC, now Section 180 BNSS, can be used to contradict under Section 162 CrPC, now Section 181 BNSS, read with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, now Section 148 BSA. Affidavits and statements given in the DV case can also be used to test credibility in a related criminal case. In Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana (1976) and Khujji v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991), the Supreme Court held that reliable parts of hostile testimony remain usable.

Now the personal risks. Giving false evidence, including through a false affidavit, is punishable under Sections 227 and 229 BNS, formerly Sections 191 and 193 IPC, with imprisonment up to seven years where given in a judicial proceeding. The court may file a complaint under Section 340 CrPC, now Section 379 BNSS, or act summarily at judgment under Section 344 CrPC, now Section 383 BNSS. A witness who swore to specific acts of violence and now flatly denies them takes a real risk.

There are counter-case risks as well. If the woman now admits the allegations were untrue, the husband or in-laws may pursue defamation under Section 356 BNS. Where a criminal charge was involved, a false-charge complaint under Section 248 BNS, formerly Section 211 IPC, may be considered. In magistrate-triable criminal cases, the court may order compensation to the accused for a false and frivolous or vexatious accusation under Section 250 CrPC, now Section 273 BNSS.

Cross-cases make consistency essential. DV cases usually run alongside maintenance, divorce, custody and criminal proceedings. Previous statements can be put to a witness under Section 148 BSA. A woman who denies violence in one forum while alleging it in another, or a relative who says one thing in an affidavit and another in court, will face serious credibility problems everywhere.

There is a safeguard for witnesses. Under Section 195 CrPC, now Section 215 BNSS, no court can take cognizance of false evidence given before it except on its own written complaint. Under Section 132 of the Evidence Act, now Section 137 BSA, compelled answers cannot be used to prosecute you except for false evidence. Read with Article 20(3) of the Constitution, these protect honest witnesses.

My honest advice is to tell the truth and use the lawful routes. If you have reconciled, the woman can withdraw her Section 12 application, compound stridhan charges, and seek quashing of non-compoundable charges. If some incidents were exaggerated by others, correct them truthfully. If the police or Protection Officer recorded something inaccurately, explain it honestly. Truthful correction is not perjury.

Many DV disputes are best resolved through mediation. Section 14 of the DV Act allows the magistrate to direct the parties to undergo counselling. Courts also refer matters to court-annexed mediation, where communications are confidential under the Mediation Act, 2023. A mediated settlement can cover residence, maintenance, stridhan, custody and all pending cases, forming the basis for withdrawal, compounding and quashing.

If you are being pressured to turn hostile, that pressure may itself be domestic violence and a crime. Threatening a witness to give false evidence is punishable under Section 232 BNS, formerly Section 195A IPC, and criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS. Breach of a protection order is punishable under Section 31 of the DV Act. The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, approved in Mahender Chawla v. Union of India (2018), and Section 398 BNSS offer protection. Proceedings can be held in camera under Section 16 of the DV Act, which may reduce pressure.

For advice tailored to your situation, you can consult the domestic violence lawyers at Aapka Legal Advice confidentially. Experienced Top Criminal Lawyers in India| Aapka Legal Advice can review your affidavits and statements across all cases, advise on withdrawal, compounding or quashing, protect you from perjury or false-charge claims, and seek urgent protection orders if you are being pressured.

Aapka Legal Advice also offers consultations with a panel of retired High Court judges, retired District and Sessions Judges and former Family Court judges who work alongside its criminal lawyers. They understand how magistrates treat withdrawal and hostility in DV proceedings, how interim maintenance is handled when claims collapse, and when High Courts quash related criminal cases on settlement.

If you have already turned hostile, do not panic. The court's power under Section 379 BNSS is discretionary, and you will be heard. Your advocate can show genuine error, reconciliation or coercion, and where coercion is established, courts often treat the woman as needing protection rather than punishment. An order directing a complaint can be appealed under Section 341 CrPC, now Section 380 BNSS, and bail is generally available.

If someone pressured you, file complaints under Sections 232 and 351 BNS and preserve evidence. If the respondent breaches a protection order, report it under Section 31 of the DV Act. If police do not act, approach the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, now Section 175(3) BNSS.

To sum up, becoming a hostile witness in a Domestic Violence Act case usually leads to denial of relief in a Section 12 application, which is civil in nature as held in Kamatchi, and may lead to vacating interim orders under Sections 23 and 25. In a criminal prosecution for breach of a protection order under Section 31, or in related cruelty cases under Section 85 BNS, hostility weakens the prosecution but does not settle it, and other evidence may still be used. Knowingly false testimony or affidavits can lead to action under Sections 227 and 229 BNS through Section 379 BNSS.

Your safest path is the truth, supported by lawful settlement options such as withdrawal, counselling under Section 14, mediation, compounding and quashing under Section 528 BNSS. If you are under pressure, seek protection immediately. Consult an experienced lawyer, and a retired judge where helpful, before you testify. That is the wisest step for anyone considering becoming a hostile witness in a Domestic Violence Act case, and the best way to protect your safety and your credibility.