Ramesh (student) 20 June 2013

Mother in law is safe from domestic violence act

Dear al experts,

There is KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DOUBLE BENCH JUDGMENT in which it is decided that mother in law is safe from DV ACT delivered by double bench of justice KL MANJUNATH and Justice BS PATIL .

This is the paper news

Moms-in-law get Karnataka high court respite from violence act

November 3, 2010 498afighthard Leave a comment

https://www.dnaindia.com/bangalore/report_moms-in-law-get-karnataka-high-court-respite-from-violence-act_1436108

Published: Friday, Sep 10, 2010, 10:26 IST
By Srikanth Hunasavadi | Place: Bangalore | Agency: DNA

Women cannot file case against female members of their husband’s family under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Karnataka high court observed on Thursday.

With this observation, the confusion over filing of complaints against woman by another woman from the same family, and how the police should proceed on such complaints, has been cleared.

Women can file a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act against their mother-in-law or sister-in-law or women relatives, but the police should initiate action against the respondents under Section 498a (relating to dowry harassment) of the IPC or any other suitable law, ruled a division bench headed by justice KL Manjunath and justice BS Patil.

The court observed that though Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act empowered women to file complaints against the relatives of their husbands, it did not include the female relatives of the men.

The division bench further observed that women should not be included as defendants in cases pertaining to residential and custody rights or protection.

In such cases, women could file complaint only against male members of the family.

The court clarified the Domestic Violence Act in Leelavati v/s Bhaskar case.

Leelavati, a resident of Okalipuram, filed complaints against her husband Bhaskar, father-in-law Murugeshan, mother-in-law Nalini and sister-in-law Kavitha under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in the magistrate court.

Bhaskar and others challenged the petition, and the court ordered the removal of all other names except that of the husband from the complaint.

Leelavathi challenged this order before a single judge bench of the high court.

The bench referred the case to the division bench with the observation that it was not good to drop the other names.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, has been widely criticised following increased instances of misuse of the provisions included in the Act.

The act was meant to provide effective protection of the rights of women, guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of violence occurring within the family.

It was, however, noticed that several women misused the Act to take revenge on their husband’s female relatives as well.
The punishment under this act is severe than that awarded in dowry harassment cases.

I have searched the judgment in KARNATAKA HIGH COURT SITE BUT COULD NOT FIND.

if Anybody will post the juddgment,i shall feel pleasure.

THANKS

REGARDS

RAMESH

Reply Follow

4 Replies

(Guest)

Good. Very Good judgment by Karnataka HC.

fighting back (exec) 20 June 2013

the judgement is excellent, but because of the above clause also inserted in it, i think more cases will move towards 498A......

Never go on face value (Manager) 20 June 2013

Dear Ramesh,

This is an older judgement. In one of the latest judgements, the court has held that DV applies to even FEMALE relatives of the husband.

For your information,

"Section 2(q) of DV Act does not specify a male relative, so female relatives cannot be exempted, the judge said. The section defines 'respondent' against whom a complaint may be filed.

Proviso to Section 19 specifies that an order under 19(1)(b) alone can not be passed against a woman, which implies that order under all other clauses can be passed against a woman, the high court said. (Section 19 provides for the types of orders that can be passed for the protection of victim)

"The beneficial legislation is required to be interpreted to enhance justice to women and not to frustrate it," the judge said.

The High Court was hearing a petition filed by Chandrakant Wagh who had sought quashing of an order passed a magistrate at Kalyan."

Regards