Domestic Violence Act 2005

"NO"

Kindky Read the below mentioned Sub Sections of the Act:

Section - 2:

(f) " domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;

(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 a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner;

For reference kindly go through the following Judgment:

s.2(q) does not allow a female to be a respondent. Pl go through the following link of this club :

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/A-FEMALE-CAN-NOT-BE-A-RESPONDENT-UNDER-DV-ACT/61396/

Gp through the following Judgments in support of your case to the extent of " Domestic Relationship".

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/634933/

1. I will say current position of minds of the Hon'ble Judges are divided and only a SLP in SC will bring in clarity. Luckily there is only one SLP right now in SC on DV admitted. I am keeping close tab on its outcome and will share the details for "common consumption" soon.
 

2. Why PWADVA is bad in my thinKing are shared between LD. readers by me here;

Sec. 2 (f) - Domestic relationship – This Section can be interpreted that a male who has parted his wife with compensation is also covered under the Act. This implies that even after paying huge amount of maintenance / alimony still this provision of the Act can be used as a tool to extort money from him.
Much to my dismay the recent case of Aruna Pramod Shah vs Union of India, reported in Law Reports on Crimes Vol II 2008, the Delhi High Court has observed that

                     " Equal treatment to both wife and mistress does not, in any manner, derogate from the
                     sanctity of marriage, since an assumption can fairly be drawn that a live-in relationship is
                     invariably initiated and perpetuated by the male.".

The law not only protects a man's wife, but also his `mistress' or a live-in-partner. On the other hand, when a law is so powerful in protecting the mistress, giving the status of a wife, it is unfair on the part of the legislators to neglect the protection for a man's mother, sister, and other female members.
 
Section 2(g) "domestic violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3;
Where the domestic violence includes all physical abuses such as assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force which are already included in IPC, it amounts to criminal offence. But the statute is silent as to the nature of offence but has criminal proceedings for the same. For a single offence, it is not justified to proceed under two proceedings. Hence, the definition clause of domestic violence should include it as a "criminal offence" only then it is justified to have criminal proceedings. A "Criminal Offence" is common for both male and female.
 

Section 159 IPC defines affray. If a husband and wife cause affray, the remedy is under Domestic Violence Act for woman. But for a man there could be no remedy. The legislators wanted to exclude women from the punishments for these offences and hence framed the DV Act by simply victimizing men by specifically stating `partner/wife' as aggrieved person.
 

Sec. 2 (q) “respondent”
It gives room to an inference that a female could have a male partner living together without a formal marriage which also means an extra marital relationship which is repugnant to our age old Indian culture as it can be interpreted as an act of adultery.

Section 2(s):- "Shared Household"
It was observed by the Supreme Court in S.R.Batra and another vs Taruna Batra(Mrs) [ 2007 (3) SCC 169] that it is not possible to accept the contention that the definition of "shared household" in Section 2(s) includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage lived in a domestic relationship and that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household. If this submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past, that property becomes a shared household. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd. It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.
 

Though the drafting of the statute conveys a different meaning, the Supreme Court has pointed that a sensible interpretation has to be given to it.
 

Section 3:- Definition of domestic violence:
The broad and wide definition and interpretation of verbal, emotional, s*xual and economic abuse, needs to be amended to avoid all normal day to day scenarios, as otherwise it allows false cases to be put under the guise of these definition of abuses, and any normal families day to day actions can be analyzed, interpreted and projected as having different shades and variety of abuses.

Verbal – It is pertinent to quote Former Attorney General Sole Sorabjee statements reported on "5 Nov 2006 in Times of India",

"In principle there is no objection to including verbal abuse in the definition of domestic violence. The problem lies in the wide definition of verbal abuse which includes "name calling and insults". Name calling in every case cannot be equated with verbal abuse. Have we not called our friends, male or female, 'shorty' or `fatty' or 'snooty' or 's*xy' and referred to them as such in conversation? An average person of ordinary sensibilities would not consider these nicknames as insults or verbal abuse. We must be guided by the standards of rational human beings. If a female consumed by intense curiosity tirelessly questions her husband or partner about his friends, male or female, and makes disparaging remarks about them, the man in exasperation may say "stop behaving like a jealous cat". On account of the wide definition he would be guilty of domestic violence on different scores. And therein lies the rub. One of the meanings of insult is "to hurt one's feelings". There are hypersensitive persons who perceive hurt and imagine insults when none is meant or intended. For example, in a heated discussion on the subject of religion and some religious practices, it is likely for a man to call his wife or female partner a fanatic and that may well be for good reasons. Is that an insult? Take the case of a debate about the advisability of the abolition of capital punishment. If the wife is fervently for hanging convicted criminals by the neck till they die, the male in exasperation may call her a blood thirsty moron. In the above examples it would be absurd to hold that the man has indulged in verbal abuse and is thus guilty of domestic violence. But that is precisely what would happen in view of the indiscriminate and imprecise definition of verbal abuse. This state of affairs would inevitably have a chilling effect on expression. Healthy and vigorous dialogue would become impossible, conversation would lose its flavour and punch and all that on the slippery subjective criterion of name-calling and feelings being hurt. It would also plant seeds for marital discord. If name-calling is persistent and abusive, that is a different matter altogether and may be dealt with appropriately. Therefore, the need is to define verbal abuse narrowly and with precision and to prevent the Domestic Violence Act from being a paradise for lawyers, a hell for husbands and nightmare for enforcement authorities."

In Towne vs Eisner 245 US 18, 425 :62 LED 372, 376 [from 2001(7) SCC 18] it was observed that

                 " A word is not a crystal , transparent and unchanged; It is the skin of living thought and
                 may vary greatly in colour and content according to the circumstances and the time in
                 which it is used."

Hence Verbal abuses and the words of the so called aggrieved person cannot be taken to be as gospel of truth all times.

Emotional – A women may get emotional for millions of reasons. As an example: the husband belief and value systems are different from that of his wife; There can therefore exist a mismatch between the two persons, thereby causing emotional distress to one or both of them. This cannot be construed as emotional abuse having caused by man on the woman.
 

Economic – Action of a conscientious family loving husband, who earns hard and ensures that his family including his wife spends and manages within a reasonable budget in the interest of his family can be put forward as an economic abuse by a spendthrift wife who feels her selfish interests are not toed by her husband. This cannot be construed as economic abuse having caused by man on the woman. This provision, whereas in Explanation II clearly states that for the purpose of determining whether any act, omission , commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes "domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration. But the innocent victims are put in a tight corner as their voice has no consideration in the courts since there can be no documentary proof or witness in a domestic case. The explanation clause is simply an appended clause to give an impartial outlook but in reality, in many cases, the real facts of the case have to be ignored to save the long title of the Act.

Therefore, there is an immediate need and mandatory requirement to define all types of abuses narrowly and with precision and to prevent the Domestic Violence Act from being a paradise for lawyers, a hell for husbands and nightmare for enforcement authorities.
 

The wife would have left the job for various reasons to take care of the family, children etc., earlier, and can make a statement as to bring that in to the purview of the Act and label it as an economic offence.
 

The DV Act singles out men as perpetrators of domestic violence and assumes that only women are victims. As per this law, only a woman can file a complaint against her male partner. A man, who is a victim of domestic violence, has no rights under this law.

I will be honest to say that the above matters relates to my DV Appeal and I am not shy to share the same during a sub-judise stage least some Hon'ble Judge reads through it correct way and save hundreds of husbands like me who are facing multiple maintenance litigations on same facts which is history in the making ha aha !
Rgds,
D. Arun Kumar
 

can i make application for discharge??

NO they cannot be made parties,yes you can file a petition for quash or discharge

YES, a female who is not at all related with the  IN LAWS FAMILY IS ALSO LIABLE TO BE FACE the proceeding

AS THIRD PARTY INTERFERER.

regards,

SIBASISH PATTANAYAK,

ADVOCATE, 09874854594.KOLKATA.