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”]
