LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

Any person can now be tried under domestic violence act: sc

Any person can now be tried under Domestic Violence Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court said that the words 'adult male person' were contrary to the object of affording protection to women who have suffered from domestic violence 'of any kind'.

 

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court has widened the scope of the Domestic Violence Act by ordering deletion of the words “adult male” from it, paving the way for prosecution of women and even non-adults for subjecting a woman relative to violence and harassment. The apex court has ordered striking down of the two words from section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which deals with respondents who can be sued and prosecuted under the Act for harassing a married woman in her matrimonial home.

Referring to earlier verdicts, the apex court said “the microscopic difference between male and female, adult and non adult, regard being had to the object sought to be achieved by the 2005 Act, is neither real or substantial, nor does it have any rational relation to the object of the legislation.”

Section 2(q) of the Act reads: “‘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 DV Act.”

A bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R F Nariman paved way for prosecution of any person irrespective of gender or age under the DV Act, ordered deletion of the words “adult male” from the statute book saying it violated right to equality under the Constitution.

The bench said that the words “adult male person” were contrary to the object of affording protection to women who have suffered from domestic violence “of any kind”.

“We, therefore, strike down the words ‘adult male’ before the word ‘person’ in Section 2(q), as these words discriminate between persons similarly situated, and far from being in tune with, are contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the 2005 Act,” it said.

The major verdict came on an appeal against the Bombay High Court judgement, which had resorted to the literal construction of the term ‘adult male’ and discharged four persons, including two girls, a woman and a minor boy, of a family from a domestic violence case on the ground that they were not “adult male” and hence cannot be prosecuted under the DV Act.

The bench in its 56-page judgement, said the remaining part of the legislation has been kept untouched and would be operative.

“We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words ‘adult male’ in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

“Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose (superfluous), also stands deleted. We may only add that the impugned judgment has ultimately held, in paragraph 27, that the two complaints of 2010, in which the three female respondents were discharged finally, were purported to be revived, despite there being no prayer in Writ Petition…for the same,” the court said.

Dealing with the term ‘adult’, the bench said “it is not difficult to conceive of a non-adult 16 or 17-year-old member of a household who can aid or abet the commission of acts of domestic violence, or who can evict or help in evicting or excluding from a shared household an aggrieved person.

“Also, a residence order which may be passed under Section 19(1)(c) can get stultified if a 16 or 17-year-old relative enters the portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides after a restraint order is passed against the respondent and any of his adult relatives…”.

The bench said that the term “adult male” contained in the Act was “discriminatory”.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/any-person-can-now-be-tried-under-domestic-violence-act-supreme-court-3073359/



Learning

 2 Replies

Dr. Atul [9013898936] (Lawyer, Scholar)     01 April 2017

Just when one thought some sanity was feebly trickling into the rusty and creaking Indian judicial minds with decisions like Arnesh, we have been bestowed with this jewel of a decision. A flasshback to the days of 498A = TADA style crackdown arresting women, septugenarians, minors, cats, dogs, potted plants and of course the evil man?

Its an October, 2016 judgment, but it seems many missed it ... looks like police dande have still not absorbed the impact of this judgment and abhi padne shuru nahi huye hain ... ok ... thanks @HH. Full judgment here: Hiralal Harsora v. Kusum Narrotamdas Harsora

The Bench had grand illusions of justice, but then, that is to expected from such a Bench (some might possibly figure out what I'm saying). 

 

~~ "This appeal therefore raises a very important question in the area of protection of the female s*x generally." ~~

Of course, it did and you are the Iron Men in Shining Armor (inside your beacon topped Toyota Corolla, not flying i.e.) that every hurt lady is looking up to with great expectations; what about male s*x ... oh wait, I forgot, they can always resort to violence in the area of protection of male s*x generally.

 

~~ "phenomenon of domestic violence against women is widely prevalent and needs redressal. Whereas criminal law does offer some redressal, civil law does not address this phenomenon in its entirety. The idea therefore is to provide various innovative remedies in favour of women who suffer from domestic violence, against the perpetrators of such violence ~~

Salutory. Wait; how about capital punishment, or better yet, castration - quite innovative as a remedy, I'm sure the Bench would agree.

 

~~ "Even s*xual abuse may, in a given fact circumstance, be by one woman on another". ~~

Beautiful ideas on violence. Looks like somebody had been spending too much time doing legal research on violence on Brazzers or Tub99.

 

~~ It is not difficult to conceive of a non-adult 16 or 17 year old member of a household who can aid or abet the commission of acts of domestic violence ~~

Where is your sense of justice when a non-adult 16 or 17 years old s*xually assults a woman or causes grievous hurt to a man under the veil of juvenile justice; where is the sense of Constitutionality of JJ laws - the same actions become too difficult to conceive then?

 

~~ the classification of “adult male person” clearly subverts the doctrine of equality, by restricting the reach of a social beneficial statute meant to protect women against all forms of domestic violence ~~

And the doctine of equalty is upheld in the majesty of law when it is only the man at the receiving end? Article  15(3)  ... bah!

 

And that is all besides the point that the Bench beautifully sidestepped the asked question that in deciding Constitutionality of a law, it can very well apply severability to save the vires of a law. But for saving the contitutionality of the valid portion of a law, it can severe/dissociate it from the unconstitutional part (read down), it cannot rewrite or reread the law or create a new law (blue pencil). Removing "adult male" from the Act is not severing unconstitutional from the constitutional; it is removing some phrase from the unconstitutional to make it constitutional ~ rewriting the law.

 

#disgust

1 Like

(Guest)

Thank you for share.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register