I was recently privileged by a fellow member who solicited my input on the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, to help with research. Below is a brief text of my humble response. My thoughts hereunder should not be interpreted as advice of any sort; it is merely an opinion (and everyone has one of those!). My intent is to put it out to the Lawyersclubindia community and invite some valid comments on this important legislation that, I believe, effectively dilutes constitutional guarantees of Privacy, radically impacts one’s views on matrimony, and contaminates the integrity of the ‘traditional’ family unit – and, yet again, puts on exhibit the unique wisdom of our chosen legislators.
It seems that previous legislation of similar color, which were discretely tucked away in secret crevices of laws of equity (more notably the lopsided provisions of 498a), have now shredded their outer dermis of purported sanctimoniousness, fair play, balance and mushroomed way out of proportion into a distinctly partial, menacing, gender-biased, reptilian Goliath slithering ruthlessly toward a sinister agenda; The agenda being far from achieving equality before the law, but discriminatory, gender-privileged treatment as a “lawful” right (sanctioned contrary to the spirit of law).
Even more ridiculous is the fact that the proponents of this “law” come from a background of failed marriages with an axe to grind, as though saying to their married kinfolk, “Don’t do as I do, but do as I say”, or “How to be a self-serving control freak and mess up your home life in a few easy steps just like we did”!!
A cursory reading of this “Law” will convince anyone that it offers the woman a ‘free ride’: laxity, even exemption from her domestic/marital responsibilities, and blanket immunity from any manner of consequential remonstration whatsoever! Concurrently, it empowers her with near absolute entitlement to crack the whip at her husband and all other serfs in her (now) summarily captured kingdom on any pretext, which the police and courts are enjoined to penalize long before a determination of guilt! (Let’s bid adieu to the fundamental maxim of justice: ‘A person is innocent until proven otherwise’!).
Adolph Hitler once opined, “What good fortune for governments that the people do not think …. It is a quite special secret pleasure how the people around us fail to realize what is really happening to them ….” This observation is certainly applicable here:
Our ‘chauvinistic’ men folk, have customarily demonstrated a proclivity toward chivalry; in seeing to the protection, comfort, and security of our women as one might accord to a domesticated pet, effectively stifling their potential for intellectual growth, productivity, recognition, etc. while being shackled to the divinely decreed role of the supportive housewife. But as we move on forward with time, and align ourselves to what’s in vogue and ‘politically correct’, we cannot help but voice agreement with the hue and cry of Feminists throughout history; that Providence’s choice on the designated role for women is intrinsically discriminatory and oppressive, and should be amended by popular vote (after all, there billions of us and only ONE of Him! Right? RIGHT!!).
Why shouldn’t women be encouraged to go out as well, and bust their derriere working for a living? The concept of the ‘I.T. era Wife’ has long since mutated from being ‘barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen’ to the Madam that ‘wears the pants’ in the family. The woman ‘wearing the pants’ is just fine with most households; the problem emanates from the difficulty of her being able to relieve herself standing masculine and erect without making a mess of things. Sexist statement? Not really, because it generates some understanding, acceptance, if not debate on the validity of traditional leanings on gender based social roles. And if the sacrifice in working for a living is too burdensome, why shouldn’t women exercise latitude to freeload off others in the extended family, without as much as raising any eyebrows, as an exclusive, automatic benefit conferred thru’ marriage.
Doesn’t that appear to be the perfect scenario for a happy parasite? Not really! Most parasites are gluttonous; they want more, and even more until the host is drained of the last drop of livelihood and dignity. And then they move on to greener pastures: another unwary schmuck! This ‘law’ nurtures an imposing climate weakening a woman’s resolve to maintain nobility and family honor since it alters the very definition of values and related expectations.
The PWDV Act 2005, masquerading as a reconciliatory move toward domestic harmony, actually represents a strong-arm mechanism to exact ‘instant reprisal’ for the long years of purported ‘female servitude and male domination’; far from being progressive and socially productive, it fuels misunderstanding and unrealistic expectations, poisons relationships, and widens the gender gap.
With a staggering illiteracy rate, it’s no surprise such laws are routinely scrubbed into our cultural fabric with little or no attention given to consequences. To be fair, one can’t really blame the legislators; they merely represent the level of intellect of the voting public. But one cannot excuse our Judges for laxity and unreasonable, unconscionable decisions that go against the grain of the Constitution they’re sworn to protect.
”The PWDV Act 2005 is realistically a functional prototype of forthcoming progressively more sophisticated and discriminatory Weapons of Mass Destruction disguised as law and should be recognized as such. This is a sinister fruit of a well planned conspiracy flaunting manicured claws, incisive fangs, and legal muscle to trample the spirit, dignity, livelihood of the majority group of tax payers (who happen to be men), and summarily stifle their indignant yelps because now, any showing of protest is ridiculously easy to criminalize.
Please don’t read me wrong: I happen to be a feminist to the core (but trapped in this ugly man’s body, just dying to break free from the shackles of testosterone! LOL). But it is well recognized in the civilized world that such ‘Women Empowerment’ movements are vehicles of oppression piloted toward exacting perverted revenge on an entire group of individuals for error(s) attributed to some unfortunate bastard who ruffled the feathers of some (possibly deserving) misanthropic thespian flaunting designer crutches of victimization but set on a mission of castigation (castration?!). (Why not just remain content with accepted forms of political protest, e.g., bra/corset burning - PLEASE!! - instead of giving Feminism a bad name? Just curious … ).
One must agree that such extraordinary, gender biased governmental ‘controls’ are undoubtedly sanctioned acts of consanguine Terrorism: an unconstitutional intrusion into one’s private nuptial chamber holding disastrous consequences. They are excessive to say the least, and detract from the spirit of togetherness, marital unity, and reciprocity in trust. It infuses instead the overbearing presence of intimidation and allows easy ingress to extortion, blackmail, and the distinctive pong of opportunism – not to mention it being a serious impediment to intimacy and ‘conjugal gratification’!
This “Law” is deliberately overbroad and vague. For instance, what EXACTLY is ‘sexually degrading’ to an ‘aggrieved’ female cohabitant? Fellatio? (There’s already a law against that!). Coition on ‘all fours’? (‘Law’ forthcoming!). Genital manipulation? (Using gloves would be sufficiently impersonal not to render the act criminal!). Leaving the female frustrated and in want? (“Sorry, Honey! I’ll try harder next time!). What sort of admissible evidence would prompt a conviction: The exclusive statement of the ‘aggrieved’ ‘victim’ since ‘it is well established that a woman of honor will not subject herself to public humiliation by admitting to nuptial horrors in court”?
The PWDV Act 2005 has created yet another source for tainted profits by further sanctifying the entrepreneurship of extortion and blackmail. The corruption we’re finding painful enough to deal with thus far outside our domestic realm and in our ‘Justice’ System, has now established a ‘lawful’ standing in our family relationships, our homes, and in our very bedroom!
So, what more surprises are being planned for the unwary male?
The PDV Act 2005 is a travesty in gaudy gift-wrapping. There are already a multitude of laws covering almost all concerns the PDV Act 2005 purports to address. But one must recognize the salient feature of this particularly irresponsible sham is that it is parasitic: it annexes selected rights and protections previously accorder to all, and makes them more applicable and exclusive to ‘aggrieved’ women, and children who have not as yet developed the capacity of mature, independent reasoning.
Here’s some food for thought: Why limit these ‘protections’ exclusively to heterosexual cohabitants? Does the law consider homosexuals, lesbians, and other sections of productive society who’re inclined toward ‘alternate’ preferences as second class citizens, thus, unworthy of equal protection under the law as it has already decreed for men?
A vague “law” stinks of arbitraryness: THEREFORE, IT is no law! IT HAS NO LEGAL WORTH, IS VOID FOR VAGUENESS, AND SHOULD BE SUMMARILY STRUCKEN DOWN.