Afzalunnisa Begum Vs The State of A.P. on 10 December, 2009
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Tag: PWDV Act Sec 2(q) – ‘Adult Male’ Words Struck Down by SC – Any Person Can Be Respondent In PWDV Case
Archana Hemant Naik Vs Urmilaben I. Naik And Anr on 25 August, 2009
Archana Hemant Naik Vs Urmilaben I. Naik And Anr on 25 August, 2009
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Eveneet Singh Vs Prashant Chaudhri & Ors on 20 December, 2010
Eveneet Singh Vs Prashant Chaudhri & Ors on 20 December, 2010
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Preeti Satija Vs Raj Kumari on 15 January, 2014
Preeti Satija Vs Raj Kumari on 15 January, 2014
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
J.Anitha Valarmathy Vs K.John Hilton Maharaja on 17 July, 2014
J.Anitha Valarmathy Vs K.John Hilton Maharaja on 17 July, 2014
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Varsha Kapoor Vs UOI & Ors. on 3 June, 2010
A very ‘convoluted 2-classes of aggrieved person‘ interpretation of respondent in a DV Act case by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this dismissed writ petition.
Just read it, it is revolting. It doesn’t even occur to them that a daughter-in-law can and does affect cruelty on mother-in-law. It is so sad.
From Para 29,
For centuries, jurists and legal scholars have debated about the functions of law, viz., why do we need law, and what does it do for society? More specifically, what functions does the law perform? Though there may not be unanimity amongst the scholars of law on the precise functions, it is widely recognized that the recurring theme of law includes; (i) social control, (ii) disputes settlement and (iii) social engineering. Though there are many methods of social control, law is considered one of the forms of former social control by prescribing social norms within which individuals/members of the society have to behave. Likewise, law discharges the functions of disputes settlement, i.e., disputes are settled by application of the law of land providing for legal rights and obligations. Apart from these, many scholars are of the view that principal function of law in modern society is social engineering (with which we are concerned here). It refers to purposive, application and direct social change initiated, guided and supported by law.
From Para 30,
Though it will remain a matter of never ending debate as to whether law brings social change or social changes in society brings law (i.e. whether law “leads” change or “follows” change), it has to be accepted that many times laws are passed to ensure normative changes in the society. Abolition of Sati Pratha by an appropriate enactment is a sterling example. In broad terms, “change” is of two types: continuous or evolutionary and discontinuous or revolutionary. The most common form of change is continuous. This day-to-day incremental change is a subtle, but dynamic, factor in social analysis.
From Para 31, peaks of convoluted and rust-ridden mindsets, yukk
The journey from enacting Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 to Amendment in IPC by incorporating Section 498A and 304B to the passing of DV Act is aimed at bringing desirable and much needed social change in this particular sphere. Therefore, Courts are required to give an interpretation which subserves the aforesaid purpose with which the law is enacted. The contention advanced by the petitioner, which negates the right given to women by this legislation has to be eschewed.
Here petitioner is also a woman but judge says, her contention negates the right given to other women by legislation.
Woman mean young-daughter-in-law only.
Varsha Kapoor Vs UOI & Ors. on 3 June, 2010[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
Kusum Lata Sharma Vs State and Anr on 2 September, 2011
This is the landmark judgment from Delhi High Court which held that “A mother who is being maltreated and harassed by her son would be an “aggrieved person”. If the said harassment is caused through the female relative of the son i.e. his wife, the said female relative will fall within the ambit of the “respondent‟. This phenomenon of the daughters-in-law harassing their mothers-in-law especially who are dependent is not uncommon in the Indian society.”
From Paras 9 and 10,
Kusum Lata Sharma Vs State & Anr. on 2 September, 20119. As a matter of fact, para ‘4(i)’ clarifies that even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single woman or living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the proposed legislation. A mother who is being maltreated and harassed by her son would be an “aggrieved person”. If the said harassment is caused through the female relative of the son i.e. his wife, the said female relative will fall within the ambit of the ‘respondent’. This phenomenon of the daughters-in-law harassing their mothers-in-law especially who are dependent is not uncommon in the Indian society.
10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, para ‘4’ of the Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot be stated to have excluded a female relative of the male partner or a respondent and thus, a mother-in-law being an “aggrieved person” can file a complaint against the daughter-in-law as a respondent.
Citations : [2011 DMC 3 1], [2011 CRIMES 4 548], [2011 DLT 181 775], [2011 DRJ 126 298], [2011 ILR SUPP DELHI 4 435], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL 1 924], [2011 SCC ONLINE DEL 3710], [2011 AIC 106 846], [2011 AD DELHI 6 576]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1272794/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090db1e4b014971117a40b
Ramu Singh Tomar & Ano. v. Smt. Bhuri Bai on 15 February, 2017
In this judgment from Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was held that “monetary relief is not restricted to maintenance only. In fact it is the monetary relief to meet the expenses and losses suffered. However, as the monetary relief can be granted towards loss of earnings, medical expenses, for expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person, therefore, it cannot be said that the lump sum amount of Rs. 15,000 so awarded by the Appellate Court was only by way of Maintenance Amount.”
Ramu Singh Tomar & Ano. v. Smt. Bhuri Bai on 15 February, 2017
Harbans Lal Malik Vs Payal Malik on 29 July, 2010
This is the Delhi High Court judgment from Shri. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, affirming that in a DV case, respondent can be other family member other than husband and are liable for relief mentioned under Monetary Relief u/s 20 of PWDV Act.
Punch Statement:
The girl and the parents of the girl knew it very well that they had selected a person for marriage with whom the girl was going to live abroad and the matrimonial home and the shared household was going to be outside India. This act of marrying a person settled abroad is a voluntary act of the girl. If she had not intended to enjoy the fat salary which boys working abroad get and the material facilities available abroad, she could have refused to marry him and settled for a boy having moderate salary within India. After having chosen a person living abroad, putting the responsibility, after failure of marriage, on the shoulders on his parents and making them criminals in the eyes of law because matrimonial ties between the two could not last for long, does not sound either legally correct or morally correct. How can the parents of a boy who is working abroad, living abroad, an adult, free to take his own decisions, be arrayed as criminals or respondents if the marriage between him and his wife failed due to any reason whatsoever after few years of marriage. If the sin committed by such parents of boy is that they facilitated the marriage, then this sin is equally committed by parents of the girl. If such marriage fails then parents of both bride and groom would have to share equal responsibility. The responsibility of parents of the groom cannot be more. Shelter of Indian culture and joint family cannot be taken to book only relatives of boy. A woman’s shared household in India in such cases is also her parents’ house where she lived before marriage and not her in-laws’ house where she did not live after marriage.
Another one here:
Harbans Lal Malik Vs Payal Malik on 29 July, 2010I am surprised that the Courts below did not give weight to the judgment of New Jersey where parties lived for 7 ½ years but assumed jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act because of the pure temporary residence (as pleaded by her) of wife in Delhi who is otherwise resident of Hissar. The Court of ASJ wanted that the order of the Court of MM should be honoured by the US while the Court here would not honour a decree of Court of USA where the husband and wife lived for 7 ½ years.
Hiral P Harsora and Ors Vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors on October 6, 2016
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, 201646. 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.
