Domestic Violence Act-- Weapon of Harrasment?

95% cases seems fake........

Many men are there who used to abuse their wives ..wives suffer and bear all these till the they attain maximum limit. After  they get fed up they go to the Court filling Sec 498A  or DV cases.The husbands get shocked when their PATIVRATA  Patniyan take this step.When his shock is over he comes to the reality that SHE too can do something.Then he starts his drama.Shed crocodile tears before wife, promises her not to do those again,to love her ...not to beat her...etc etc..

The pativrata stree melts and forgets everything...come to compromise in the greed of a complete and happy family.....or stops contesting the case...thus a case turns to a fake one...this is the truth if anybody looks around himself/herself in the society.Official records shows the result only...but the story of the  way to reach the result is different...

In life we see on one perspectives so we say this is not good

The aim and objectives of DV act is noble but how many of women can get justice using DV act?

The answer you find in india is not as good as you imagine

So, misuse of law so we all can suggest to remove the law then what women can do?

firstly the agency and govt. should perform their duty effetively to protect the women rights and have proper mechanism to give relief to true cases .

One one side one can misuse the law as their awareness of law and use it as weapon and on other side one victim cannot get justice using this law .

The feminist say .. protection to women... all they care!!!!!

Protection should be to repressed ... from repressor and not from women to man .  Until the women terrorist and their accomplice realise it  they are waging a loosing battle.

 The way to stop repression is not to give guns .. as it starts creating another social menance.- example is 498a.

Most of the miusers of this law is educated  working folks who seldom need this law and poor never get benift of this.

So what good is a law which never benifit its  intended benificiary and ends up becomming a terrorist weapon and a tool for harasshment?

Want to consult u in desertion by wife.. may i visit or contact u.. I am recently in chandigarh..

@ UK..

PATIVRATA  Patniyan ?? is not putting fake cases??

then why this PATIVRATA  Patniyan is putting case on HUSBAND'S Sister and Mother first..

why this PATIVRATA  Patniyan want the other two innocent (many cases) women should be torchered ..if she is not putting fake case.?..

what the statistics giving is correct ,,,its 95% fake and remaining 5% genuine..

but here the problem is to Save one WOMEN Indian Law is torchering TWO OTHER WOMEN.....

good section 498a...which is a law against  WOMEN who are siblings or mothers, people are supporting such law.

Who saves "Mothers" and "Sisters" in this society ??

History says women are real enemy to WOMEN.

Small correction 98% cases are fake not 95..

ha ha ha.....

actually 'domestic violence' term itself is a fake one..!!!!

Beneficial Legislation ?????? what you are talking here Mr. or Ms. Lawyer (whatever your gender is).........


Please go and read first that any kind of class legislation is banned even as per Constitution of India (Art. 14)


Now if you even understand slightly more basics of Law then for a Statute to be called as the one which is "reasonably classified", it has to adhere to Article 14 of Constitution of India - "Equal Protection before Law" and should pass the tests as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in below re. where even UOI lost the case !

DV Act is not a class legislation in any manner and to call it a "reasonably classified" statute, it fails the tests laid down as it attempts to take away the male partner's rights which are guaranteed by the classification. Hence, it's aim is only to bring in social parity and to help the deprived to come into the mainstream breaking the shackles. In other words, the Act is to perform as a deterrent to those erring male partners and hence have been causing the domestic violence. Even under this theory, the statute cannot be allowed to operate retrospectively which is second headache created by this so called ultra virus Act passed in a hurry by both Houses with what 27 debates from 2002 till date ha ha.

If above is undigestable then read yourself  Mr. or Ms. Lawyer before callign DV Act "welfare legislation" - misinformation to readers by so callaed lawyers collective !

1981 (4) SCC 93
Accountant General & Anr ETC. ETC Vs. S Doraiswamy & ORS.

1994 (5) SCC 450
Union of India Vs Tushar Ranjan Mohanty on 14/07/1994

2006 (2) SCC 740
S.L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills P. Ltd Vs. Union of India & Anr