The Supreme Court of India has struck down the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act) as unconstitutional..The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Nariman in an appeal filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court..The case has its genesis in a writ petition filed by a mother and daughter before the High Court assailing the Constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Act..In 2014, the Bombay High Court had read down Section 2(q) of the Act holding that,.…we are inclined to read down the provisions of section 2(q) of the DV Act and to hold that the provisions of “respondent” in section 2(q) of the DV Act is not to be read in isolation but has to be read as a part of the scheme of the DV Act, and particularly along with the definitions of “aggrieved person”, “domestic relationship” and “shared household” in clauses (a), (f) and (s) of section 2 of the DV Act. .If so read, the complaint alleging acts of domestic violence is maintainable not only against an adult male person who is son or brother, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved complainant- mother or sister, but the complaint can also be filed against a relative of the son or brother including wife of the son / wife of the brother and sisters of the male respondent.”.This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court..Senior Advocate Harin Raval appeared for the appellant while Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appeared for the respondents. Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand appeared for the Central government..The Court, in its judgment, first considered the preamble of the Act which provided a basis for its reasoning and conclusions:.“A cursory reading of the statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that the phenomenon of domestic violence against women is widely prevalent and needs redressal. Whereas criminal law does offer some redressal, civil law does not address this phenomenon in its entirety. The idea therefore is to provide various innovative remedies in favour of women who suffer from domestic violence, against the perpetrators of such violence.”.The Court then analysed different provisions of the Act to assert the gender neutral setup under the Act..Regarding Section 2(f) if held the following:.“It will be noticed that the definition of “domestic relationship” contained in Section 2(f) is a very wide one. It is a relationship between persons who live or have lived together in a shared household and are related in any one of four ways – blood, marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or family members of a joint family. A reading of these definitions makes it clear that domestic relationships involve persons belonging to both sexes and includes persons related by blood or marriage. This necessarily brings within such domestic relationships male as well as female in-laws, quite apart from male and female members of a family related by blood.”.Regarding Section 3,.“When Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence, it is clear that such violence is gender neutral. It is also clear that physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and economic abuse can all be by women against other women. Even sexual abuse may, in a given fact circumstance, be by one woman on another. Section 3, therefore, in tune with the general object of the Act, seeks to outlaw domestic violence of any kind against a woman, and is gender neutral.”.The same view was taken with regard to section 17(2), 19, 20, 26 etc etc..“Examples can be multiplied, all of which would only lead to the conclusion that even the expression “adult” in the main part is Section 2(q) is restrictive of the object sought to be achieved by the kinds of orders that can be passed under the Act and must also be, therefore, struck down, as this word contains the same discriminatory vice that is found with its companion expression “male”..Placing reliance on a plethora of judgments the court held that the,. “microscopic difference between male and female, adult and non- adult, regard being had to the object sought to be achieved by the 2005 Act, is neither real or substantial nor does it have any rational relation to the object of the legislation..“We, therefore, strike down the words “adult male” before the word “person” in Section 2(q), as these words discriminate between persons similarly situate, and far from being in tune with, are contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the 2005 Act.”.Relying on the severability principle the court made it clear that though the expression “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the Act is struck down, the rest of the Act would remain intact and can be enforced to achieve the object of the legislation without the offending words. It, however, clarified that the proviso to 2(q) will have no independent existence since the words “adult male” has been struck down and it is consequently rendered otiose..Advocate Manisha T Karia, who was the advocate-on-record for the respondent mother, had this to say:.“It is a very welcome judgment. It makes the act gender neutral. The DV Act is, in fact, a piece of beneficial legislation which is not penal in nature and offers civil remedies and secured housing for woman may it be mother, sister, wife, daughter sharing household. .In the current setup, it is not just a wife who could be a victim of domestic violence. A mother or sister could also be subject to domestic violence. Women can harass another woman living under the same roof. If a single daughter is living with her brother and sister-in-law, she could be harassed. The judgment by deleting “male adult” has removed the bar of filing complaint against the woman members sharing household who could be abusive.”.Read the full judgment below.
The Supreme Court of India has struck down the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Act) as unconstitutional..The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Nariman in an appeal filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court..The case has its genesis in a writ petition filed by a mother and daughter before the High Court assailing the Constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Act..In 2014, the Bombay High Court had read down Section 2(q) of the Act holding that,.…we are inclined to read down the provisions of section 2(q) of the DV Act and to hold that the provisions of “respondent” in section 2(q) of the DV Act is not to be read in isolation but has to be read as a part of the scheme of the DV Act, and particularly along with the definitions of “aggrieved person”, “domestic relationship” and “shared household” in clauses (a), (f) and (s) of section 2 of the DV Act. .If so read, the complaint alleging acts of domestic violence is maintainable not only against an adult male person who is son or brother, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved complainant- mother or sister, but the complaint can also be filed against a relative of the son or brother including wife of the son / wife of the brother and sisters of the male respondent.”.This judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court..Senior Advocate Harin Raval appeared for the appellant while Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appeared for the respondents. Additional Solicitor General Pinky Anand appeared for the Central government..The Court, in its judgment, first considered the preamble of the Act which provided a basis for its reasoning and conclusions:.“A cursory reading of the statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that the phenomenon of domestic violence against women is widely prevalent and needs redressal. Whereas criminal law does offer some redressal, civil law does not address this phenomenon in its entirety. The idea therefore is to provide various innovative remedies in favour of women who suffer from domestic violence, against the perpetrators of such violence.”.The Court then analysed different provisions of the Act to assert the gender neutral setup under the Act..Regarding Section 2(f) if held the following:.“It will be noticed that the definition of “domestic relationship” contained in Section 2(f) is a very wide one. It is a relationship between persons who live or have lived together in a shared household and are related in any one of four ways – blood, marriage or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or family members of a joint family. A reading of these definitions makes it clear that domestic relationships involve persons belonging to both sexes and includes persons related by blood or marriage. This necessarily brings within such domestic relationships male as well as female in-laws, quite apart from male and female members of a family related by blood.”.Regarding Section 3,.“When Section 3 of the Act defines domestic violence, it is clear that such violence is gender neutral. It is also clear that physical abuse, verbal abuse, emotional abuse and economic abuse can all be by women against other women. Even sexual abuse may, in a given fact circumstance, be by one woman on another. Section 3, therefore, in tune with the general object of the Act, seeks to outlaw domestic violence of any kind against a woman, and is gender neutral.”.The same view was taken with regard to section 17(2), 19, 20, 26 etc etc..“Examples can be multiplied, all of which would only lead to the conclusion that even the expression “adult” in the main part is Section 2(q) is restrictive of the object sought to be achieved by the kinds of orders that can be passed under the Act and must also be, therefore, struck down, as this word contains the same discriminatory vice that is found with its companion expression “male”..Placing reliance on a plethora of judgments the court held that the,. “microscopic difference between male and female, adult and non- adult, regard being had to the object sought to be achieved by the 2005 Act, is neither real or substantial nor does it have any rational relation to the object of the legislation..“We, therefore, strike down the words “adult male” before the word “person” in Section 2(q), as these words discriminate between persons similarly situate, and far from being in tune with, are contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the 2005 Act.”.Relying on the severability principle the court made it clear that though the expression “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the Act is struck down, the rest of the Act would remain intact and can be enforced to achieve the object of the legislation without the offending words. It, however, clarified that the proviso to 2(q) will have no independent existence since the words “adult male” has been struck down and it is consequently rendered otiose..Advocate Manisha T Karia, who was the advocate-on-record for the respondent mother, had this to say:.“It is a very welcome judgment. It makes the act gender neutral. The DV Act is, in fact, a piece of beneficial legislation which is not penal in nature and offers civil remedies and secured housing for woman may it be mother, sister, wife, daughter sharing household. .In the current setup, it is not just a wife who could be a victim of domestic violence. A mother or sister could also be subject to domestic violence. Women can harass another woman living under the same roof. If a single daughter is living with her brother and sister-in-law, she could be harassed. The judgment by deleting “male adult” has removed the bar of filing complaint against the woman members sharing household who could be abusive.”.Read the full judgment below.