CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTION 2(Q) OF THE DV ACT IN THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT
According to section 2(a) of the DV Act 2005 “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.
It is undisputed that aggrieved person will only be female who are living or has been lived in a domestic relationship with the respondents.
Now what is the meaning of a particular female and other females? Both are belong to same gender, same types and living in the same manner but only difference is age factor and therefore on one side aggrieved person is daughter in law and on the other side the respondents are mother in law. So by virtue of difference of age in both females they are treated as either aggrieved person or the respondents.
Further there are no criteria in the Act that if a daughter in law has filed a complaint against her mother in law in her younger days, she will not face the proceedings of the DV Act after she became mother in law in future.
Further according to human rights and other principles of justice every older women has given special benefits being consider them as weaker in health and vigour and therefore almost in all sector priorities has been given to them such as in railway (special concession and priority in lower berth), Income tax relief even on higher income as compare to general public. Apart from it after reaching the age of 60 they have been treated as senior citizen of our country. But so far as DV Act is concern all the old women has been treated as culprit and accused, if her daughter in law has approached the court of law revoking the DV Act.
Further whenever any aggrieved woman approached to file a complaint of DV Act she has not passed a test of truth nor certified by the authority that all the aggrieved women is only honest and all the female respondents named in the complaint are dishonest, sinful and criminal.
When both DIL and MIL are belong to same gender why sympathy is placed on the younger DIL rather than to older MIL.
Hon’ble Supreme Court is also not happy with clumsy drafting of the DV Act. Definition of respondent as per section 2(q) is very clear from the plain reading but it has been interpreted very cleverly against the older female to brought in the purview of the DV Act in the case of SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHEDE and thereafter a long chain of cases has been increases to misused the provision of the DV Act after roping all the female members living in the family of the respondent by their daughter in law.
Second para of 2(q) very precisely specifies that “provided that an aggrieved wife OR FEMALE living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.
Now there are so many family members in a family such as SON, HIS SHREWD WIFE, and father in law, mother in law. Brother in law (brothers in law wife), sisters in law (husband of sister in law) uncle in law, aunty in law and their unmarried daughters. But as per Act only shrewd wife can file DV complaint against all the above family members including all the female members and no other female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage in the family can file DV complaint against shrewd wife though she is also relative of the husband (wife) and as per above definition (brothers in law wife), married sisters in law living in the family, and mother in law and aunty in law are also living in the nature of marriage with their respective husband then why all these female cannot file a complaint against this shrewd wife i.e. daughter in law even after having almost equal age of the daughter in law.
A PIL is on the board of BOMBAY HIGH COURT headed by Hon’ble Chief justice Shri MOHIT SHAH and justice Shri M.S.SONAK filed by Madam KUSUM HARSORA and PUSHPA HARSORA bearing case No 300/2013 and the case is pleading by Kusum harsora herself as party in person wherein she has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2 (q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and wherein she has pleased that domestic violence has also inflicted upon mother in law and one sister in law by her daughter in law and also by her own two other daughters and therefore her complaint should be registered under the act against her daughter in law and other two daughters.
Next final date is on 08/07/2014.
The briefing of the case and Hon’ble court proceeding dated 14/02/2013 is as under:-
ANY EXPERTS OF THE ACT PLEASE SUGGEST ANY ARGUMENT IN THE MATTER AND IF IT IS ACCEPTED HALF OF THE DV ACT CASE WILL BE REDUCTED AND IN FUTURE DIL WILL THINK SO MANY TIMES TO FILE THE CASE AS THIS WILL ALSO A COUNTER ATTACK AGAINST HER
Note: Madam HARSORA please PM me for sending more argument in the matter as I could not locate your mail id or telephone number in Mumbai directory or inform the same in this forum.
Regards
Ramesh
09427144414 myngone@gmail.com
