Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

stanley (Freedom)     19 February 2013

Dv gender biased law

The Bombay high court has issued a notice to the attorney general of India
seeking the Union government’s reply on why the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005, allows cases only to be filed against male
members.

A division bench of chief justice Mohit Shah and justice Anoop Mohta on
Thursday
 was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Kusum
Harsora, 53, and her mother Pushpa, 78, challenging the constitutional
validity of a section of the act on the ground of being discriminatory.

The mother and daughter have taken strong exception to section 2 (q), which
defines “respondent” as any adult male person who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the
aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act.

The duo contented that the legislation did not allow women to file
complaints against other female members of the family — like
daughter-in-law, sister or daughter — who too could be perpetrators of
domestic violence.

“The legislation is for protection of women, and if I am a woman, why can’t
it protect me?” Kusum said.

The petitioners had lodged a complaint against Kusum’s brother,
sister-in-law and two sisters for subjecting the 78-year-old to mental and
physical harassment. However, in February 2012, the high court discharged
the three women holding that no complaint could be filed against women
under the act.

“The provision ignores the fact that even female members of the family can
be perpetrators of domestic violence,” the PIL said.

The petition said that the limited definition of “respondent” under the
act, apart being from being arbitrary, defeated the entire purpose of the
act by excluding substantial category of perpetrators of domestic violence
from its ambit.


https://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/Mumbai/HC-seeks-Centre-s-reply-on-bias-in-domestic-violence-act/Article1-1011945.aspx



Learning

 3 Replies

Msk-need -nuetral- laws (self)     19 February 2013

good info.

Shantanu Wavhal (Worker)     19 February 2013

all NATAK !

first issue notice

then get report after n no. of years.

then dont come to any conclusion !!


total fiasco.


but now, we are used to it !!

 

chalne do.

rajiv_lodha (zz)     21 February 2013

Why this new mess now??

On 31-01-11, double bench of SC has already made the point clear via this judgment

Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade … Appellant
Vs.
Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors. … Respondents
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.

And HC Delhi also upheld the same in the following one:

KUSUM LATA SHARMA versus STATE & ANR


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register