This landmark judgment from Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Kurian Joseph at Hon’ble Supreme Court has struck down the words “adult male” appearing in Section 2(q) of the Act as discriminatory.
From Last Para,
Hiral P Harsora and ors Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors on October 6, 2016
46. 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, 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 No.300/2013 for the same. When this was pointed out, Ms. Meenakshi Arora very fairly stated that she would not be pursuing those complaints, and would be content to have a declaration from this Court as to the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act. We, therefore, record the statement of the learned counsel, in which case it becomes clear that nothing survives in the aforesaid complaints of October, 2010. With this additional observation, this appeal stands disposed of.
Citation: [2016 SCC OnLine SC 1118] or [(2016) 10 SCC 165]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114237665/
More than 5 years back, Supreme Court has actually held that Women can also be made respondents in a DV case here.
The index page is here.