Domestic and intimate partner violence

This Act aims to protect any persons who are victims of domestic violence, including persons having a common household. It also defines “violence” as “intentional physical, mental, sexual, economic, or other influence exerted upon a person by act or omission, due to which the person suffers physical, material, or non-pecuniary damage.” Under the Act, victims do not have to submit a private complaint, but public prosecutors must charge the offenders.

This article provides that in order to obtain protection from violence, threats or harassment, a person (the “applicant”) may request a court to order the offending party to refrain from approaching the applicant or the applicant’s home, contacting and harassing the applicant, and frequenting specific locations. If the applicant lives in the same dwelling as the offending party, the applicant may ask the court to order the offending party to leave the dwelling for a specified period, which may be extended on one occasion for good cause.

In the case Aruna Parmod Shah v.

The appellant’s claims concerned domestic violence perpetrated by her husband and assertions of inadequate state protection from such violence.

A. met B. in St. Gallen in 1993. A. had to leave Switzerland at the end of 1995. They married in April 1996 in Ghana. In August 1996, A. was able to return to Switzerland. After his return, the relationship gradually became more oppressive and menacing toward B., for example, by pressuring B. for sexual intercourse.  B. gave in to his demands when she could no longer stand the intimidation. B. separated from A. on March, 28, 1998, and on July 20, 1998, A. was prosecuted for threatening, assaulting, and coercing B. The district and appellate courts in the Canton of St.

M.P.B. suffered repeated domestic violence and abuse at the hands of her husband R.A.G. In civil suit, M.P.B. was granted exclusive control of the spousal home and custody of her children. The court imposed a restraining order on R.A.G.; he was unable to go within 300 meters of the family home, his wife’s work, or the 9 and 12 year-old children’s school. This case is fairly punitive toward the father by Argentinean standards. The judge cited both Argentinean statutes and international human rights law in arriving at her decision.

T.L.R. was an eighth-grader at the Texas School for the Deaf and was dating B.C., also an eighth-grader at the School. After about two months of dating, B.C. approached T.L.R. and told her he wanted to have sex with her; she responded “no” twice and tried to get away from him by entering the girls’ restroom. B.C. followed her into the restroom. T.L.R. told him “I don’t want this” but B.C. took her clothes off, took his clothes off, told her to lie down on the floor, and penetrated her. T.L.R.’s father sought and obtained a protective order against B.C. on behalf of his daughter. B.C.

In Balan Subramaniam a/l Ponnudurai v Public Prosecutor, the appellant was tried for setting fire to his home, causing the deaths of his wife and daughter and seriously injuring another child. Before her death, the wife gave an oral statement naming him as the perpetrator, while the daughter provided a written declaration to police with the same accusation. The trial court admitted the wife’s statement but questioned the daughter’s, citing a lack of medical evidence on her capacity at the time.

A husband stabbed his wife in the abdomen during a sudden quarrel, leading to her death. He was convicted under Section 302 IPC (murder) and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court. He appealed the sentence, claiming that the record clearly establishes that he only delivered a single blow to his wife in a sudden quarrel, and therefore conviction under Section 302 is not proper. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court.

Applicant v. Respondent; Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof); decision dated March 22, 2023 - 7 Ob 38/23y

The systematic and covert technical surveillance of a spouse’s highly personal area of life, resulting in psychological stress, justifies the issuance of a temporary injunction against the spouse pursuant to Section 382c and Section 382d Execution Order (Exekutionsordnung - EO).