DATE OF ORDER:
23 January 2023
JUDGE(S):
Justice Jasmeet Singh
SUBJECT
The learned Calcutta High Court in the present case stayed proceedings under the Prevention of Women against Domestic Violence Act taking the prima facie view that protection under the Act is not available to the husband.
IMPORTANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act
- Section 2(a)- defines ‘aggrieved person’- as a woman who is involved in a domestic relationship with the respondent. It further states that such woman must allegedly be subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
- The respondent i.e the husband had moved the Court u/s 12 of Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act. The complaint was filed before the learned MM, Karkardooma Court, Delhi.
- The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint and proceeding sought to be initiated by the respondent.
LEGAL ISSUE
- Whether the protection under Domestic Violence Act available to male members?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that allowing a male member to initiate proceedings u/s 12 of DV Act is contrary to the intent of the this legislation.
- Further, it was submitted that it would also not be in keeping with the definition of ‘aggrieved person’ in section 2(a) of the Act.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
The learned Court held that ‘prima facie it seems in view of Section 2(a), the protection of the Act is not available to a male member of the family and more particularly the husband.’
CONCLUSION
The light of the above observation made, the learned Court stayed the proceedings in the complaint filed by the husband before learned MM till the next date of hearing.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
