A WOMEN other than WIFE can be booked under DV Act

Its really terrible news, the human relations are getting worse day by day.

Ya, voilence is not specific to gender.  It can either be from male or female, So DV should applicable to women as well.  It is a good sign taking the cognizance under DV act.  But still it has to change a lot.

This is terrible. ..  :(

Human right is the basic right of any person. I really feel bad that India has gender biased laws. These laws go against the International Conventions of Human Rights. Being a biggest Democratic country, with these kind of laws, we have no justification to have such one sided laws. Supreme Court time and again have objected to DV Act. I really do not think the time will come when our legislators will make up their mind to amend such laws.

Here, in this case, I do not know how the courts took the congisance of the case filed by a female against a female. The Act specifically defines that the "complainant" shall always be a "woman" and the " respondent" should be a "man"... 

. Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;

Section 2 Clause (q) of DV Act, the Respondent means any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship.

I do agree with Suchitra ji, that we have gender biased laws in India which are really destroying in innocent indian families.  It is a bad sign for a country like our mother India which is in developing stage.

Its really unfortunate that, the way the DV act is formulated.  How can the aggrieved party is always a woman and the respondent is adult men.   This is nothing but a gender biased law.  Every human being will have their own emotions whether its male or female.  The mental or physical cruelty is not always one sided, it can be from both the parties.  So it should be a gender neutral law.  I personally feel, it is a voilation of human rights and its a obstacle for life and liberty of a citizen.  Indian families should think and revolutionize against gender biased laws to protect our families.  Otherwise every family will disintegrate and there is a danger that future citizens will become orphans or semi orphans without their parental care.

I suppose the case is filed by the mother in law against her son in law. But I do not know how her two daughters were made a party too.

This country only has laws but justice delivery system. More an newer laws enacted rapidly contribute to new criminal ideas and pendency of cases in courts. The longest Constitution in the world has no provision checking the endless law making powers of the Parliament and State legislatures. Politicians instead of decreasing crime are increasing it by giving new ideas disguised as laws. Instead of working for the poor they are eliminating them, making rich, richer and the poor poorer. Rajya Sabha should be abolished like the British house of Lords. No country has such white elephants which only burden the common man with all types of multiple taxation. And who exist in Rajya Sabha: Industrialist, film actors and other filthy rich persons.

Hi Brutus, you are right.  As long as we dont change, leaders will not change,as long as leaders will not change, the system will not change.  So change has to come from us only.

Prabhakar Sir, thanks for the info. But I just want to know how can court interpret the meaning which is not there in the Act under which the case has been filed? Is it not that they are exceeding their power by doing so?

Thank you Sir. But my question still remains unanswered as to how courts can make a person a party who cannot be made a party by the concerned Act?

Sir, I am asking you this, particularly because, in case from our office, where in a mother in lw was made a party by her daughter in law along with complainant's husband. The case was at Karnataka HC, and the judge was not at all ready to accept a 'woman' as a 'respondent' as it goes against the Act. We had quoted the judgments wherein a 'woman' has been made a 'respondent'. He did not even pay heed to have a look at them. Finally, mother in law had to be removed from being a party.

I do not say, he is wrong. Coz, I think Courts cannot interpret that which is specifically denied by the Act.

Hope you have understood my confusion.

Prabhakar,

Bze Justice Dhingra has highest testosterones level in judiciary, what do you have Prabhakar? I suppose you interpret family law as it may please ONLY YOU then cry foul bze some particular posted judgment here donot talk about your favourite subject WIFE - WIFE - WIFE and YEAT AGAIN A WIFE !

Only one Que. 2u: Tell readers where in the DV Act it is mentioned that DV Act can be interpreted RETROSPECTIVELY? Before you answer read thoroughly S. 209 Sub Rule 5 and 6 of Committee on Subordinate Legislation and then read Bill No. 116 – C of 2005 in its raw form as presented by Member before Parliament. Further read thoroughly 76 countries Law; on why no country says that a Statute can be applied retrospectively and only in 2 countries Law was applied retrospectively that also for War Crimes tribunals and for Taxations.


Anything else popping as Interpretation of Statutes, keep justifying as per Point of Law minus your personal philosophies if you can………for WIFE - WIFE - WIFE and YEAT AGAIN ONLY A WIFE clearly forgetting that a women becomes a WIFE only because there is a HUSBAND to form a ‘relationship’ and all your talk here are as if all HUSBANDS should be castrated just after sath phera right in front of holy fire and somehow be given status of a sperm donors and beyond that HUSBAND–cum-FATHER have no role to a WOMEN (read here as WIFE) and no Laws of the land (read here atleast in India) should be for a HUSBAND –cum – FATHERS – PERIOD YES PERIOD AGAIN PERIOD.

@ Suchitra, Pl. see sec. 2(q) of the DV Act:

(q) "respondent" means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against the relative of the husband or the male partner;
 

So in the case you mentioned you had in your office, there is no bar for the mother in law to be added as a party as per Sec. 2(q).

Learned friends, pl correct me if I am wrong. Thank You.

Sir, there will be two parties : Aggrieved and the respondent. And aggrieved, according to the Act, should be a woman.

Now, concentrate on the definition 2 (q) : It says, 'respondent' means any "MALE"......

How can a mother in law can become a 'respondent' ? She is a FEMALE, right ?  :)

@ Suchitra

mother in law comes under the category of the relative of the husband against whom the complaint can be filed. Respondent no doubt is defined as a male. But in the proviso, it has been given that complaint can be made against the relative of the husband. It is here I say that, it has not been mentioned as a male relative only. So it includes mother in law.