IBC Code: Complete Overview and Drafting Workshop. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     12 October 2010

A WOMEN other than WIFE can be booked under DV Act

Two married daughters arrested and case filed against them under Domestic Violence Act (DVA, 2005) by their own Mother !

First read my old post - link


especially the bold / underlined reasoning given by Dr. Kamini Lau, Ld. ASJ, Delhi trial courts that ALL WOMEN relatives equally protected under PWDVA and a "women" under DV Act also includes DIL as well as a mother's own married daughter(s) and finally the below news pays the way to book "all other  women(s)" in a domestic relationship / shared household under provisions of Domestic Violence Act (previously people were under impression that DV Act is only for errant WIFE"s but this myth is broken ultimately)

News post title: Two women arrested for injecting HIV blood into mother

, Oct 7 – Angry with their mother for refusing to write the property in their names, two women and the husband of one injected her with HIV-contaminated blood in Andhra Pradesh’s Guntur town. The three were arrested Thursday.

Durga, 35, Kameshwari, 32, and Kameshwari’s husband Sambasiva Rao, 36, have been arrested, police said. They were later produced in a court, which sent them to jail for two weeks.

The trio were after the property of 59-year-old Bharati and allegedly injected her with HIV-infected blood. Bharati complained to police that Durga, her step-daughter from her earlier husband, in connivance with Kameshwari and her husband took her to a hospital where they injected her with the HIV-infected blood.

Kameshwari works as a nurse in a government-run hospital, where she with the help of her husband and sister committed the crime.

Bharati, who was undergoing treatment for fever, grew suspicious when her condition worsened and she underwent blood tests which confirmed that she was injected with contaminated blood.

She alongwith her husband, Rachakonda Ranga Rao, a retired government employee, lodged a complaint with the police.

A case under Domestic Violence Act was booked against her daughters and son-in-law.

The accused were mounting pressure on Bharati to hand over to them her property estimated at Rs.50 lakh and when she refused they hatched a plan to ensure her death.

News item source link:


 19 Replies

chanakyam (Consultant)     13 October 2010

Its really terrible news, the human relations are getting worse day by day.

Ya, voilence is not specific to gender.  It can either be from male or female, So DV should applicable to women as well.  It is a good sign taking the cognizance under DV act.  But still it has to change a lot.

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     13 October 2010

This is terrible. ..  :(


Human right is the basic right of any person. I really feel bad that India has gender biased laws. These laws go against the International Conventions of Human Rights. Being a biggest Democratic country, with these kind of laws, we have no justification to have such one sided laws. Supreme Court time and again have objected to DV Act. I really do not think the time will come when our legislators will make up their mind to amend such laws.

Here, in this case, I do not know how the courts took the congisance of the case filed by a female against a female. The Act specifically defines that the "complainant" shall always be a "woman" and the " respondent" should be a "man"... 

1 Like

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     13 October 2010


Definitions.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

(a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;

Section 2 Clause (q) of DV Act, the Respondent means any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship.

1 Like

chanakyam (Consultant)     13 October 2010

I do agree with Suchitra ji, that we have gender biased laws in India which are really destroying in innocent indian families.  It is a bad sign for a country like our mother India which is in developing stage.

Its really unfortunate that, the way the DV act is formulated.  How can the aggrieved party is always a woman and the respondent is adult men.   This is nothing but a gender biased law.  Every human being will have their own emotions whether its male or female.  The mental or physical cruelty is not always one sided, it can be from both the parties.  So it should be a gender neutral law.  I personally feel, it is a voilation of human rights and its a obstacle for life and liberty of a citizen.  Indian families should think and revolutionize against gender biased laws to protect our families.  Otherwise every family will disintegrate and there is a danger that future citizens will become orphans or semi orphans without their parental care.

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     13 October 2010

I suppose the case is filed by the mother in law against her son in law. But I do not know how her two daughters were made a party too.


This country only has laws but justice delivery system. More an newer laws enacted rapidly contribute to new criminal ideas and pendency of cases in courts. The longest Constitution in the world has no provision checking the endless law making powers of the Parliament and State legislatures. Politicians instead of decreasing crime are increasing it by giving new ideas disguised as laws. Instead of working for the poor they are eliminating them, making rich, richer and the poor poorer. Rajya Sabha should be abolished like the British house of Lords. No country has such white elephants which only burden the common man with all types of multiple taxation. And who exist in Rajya Sabha: Industrialist, film actors and other filthy rich persons.

chanakyam (Consultant)     13 October 2010

Hi Brutus, you are right.  As long as we dont change, leaders will not change,as long as leaders will not change, the system will not change.  So change has to come from us only.


1.  Do not believe the news paper items at face value. 

2.  Do not believe police story about any crime.  They want the easiest and shortest method to find a solution to a crime.

3. Do not rely under  what Act and under What section police book the accused.  They bring pick-pocket and charge him under Section 376 rape case in another case and allow the rapist to go scot free by taking huge bribes.  In the above case, only police booked them under DV Act.  The judiciary has not given any green signal about charging those people under DV Act.

4. Dr. Kamini Lau is just learned Additional Sessions Judge in one of innumerable Sessions courts of Delhi.  Her judgements are only  persuasive in nature and not binding on any one except the parties before her.  On this forum I repeatedly see the quotes of her judgements about dowry prohibition Act and Domestic Violence Act by some vested members, as those would suit them to insult the women in general.

5.  Finally I submit that there are judgments of hon'ble High Courts regarding to make the women as respondents in the DV cases.

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     13 October 2010

Prabhakar Sir, thanks for the info. But I just want to know how can court interpret the meaning which is not there in the Act under which the case has been filed? Is it not that they are exceeding their power by doing so?



kindly go through the attached file, which gives well reasons that why woman can be respondent in DV cases.  This is Delhi High Court's Division Bench judgment.  some of the members here, while at the time of filing this petition, which has been dismissed by H.C.,  clamoured so much about the injustice meted out by men and how the court would be going to give judgement in their favour.  Now, after the judgement was delivered four months back, they never reported this judgment on this portal.  Similarly, some of the members, repeatedly and repeatedly have been quoting the judgements of justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra of Delhi High Court and Justic Dalveer Bhandari of Suprme Court judgment of legal terrorism.  But they are quite silent when any judgment in favour of women comes out from the courts.  That is what I call, "biased" attitude.

Attached File : 52 52 varsha kapoor vs uoi ors on 3 june 2010.txt downloaded: 71 times
2 Like

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     13 October 2010

Thank you Sir. But my question still remains unanswered as to how courts can make a person a party who cannot be made a party by the concerned Act?

Suchitra. S (Advocate)     13 October 2010

Sir, I am asking you this, particularly because, in case from our office, where in a mother in lw was made a party by her daughter in law along with complainant's husband. The case was at Karnataka HC, and the judge was not at all ready to accept a 'woman' as a 'respondent' as it goes against the Act. We had quoted the judgments wherein a 'woman' has been made a 'respondent'. He did not even pay heed to have a look at them. Finally, mother in law had to be removed from being a party.

I do not say, he is wrong. Coz, I think Courts cannot interpret that which is specifically denied by the Act.

Hope you have understood my confusion.


The DB of Delhi High Court has clearly explained how a woman has to be made a respondent in DV case.   Let us take a very small example.  A DIL wants shared household and protection orders under DV Act.  Her shared household is also the residence of FIL,MIL, SIL, Husband, and BIL.  If that wife makes only husband, FIL and BIL as respondents and the court grants shared household and protection orders in favour of that wife, the wife enters the shared household.  There, if she will be pushed, pulled, physically harassed and mentally harassed by MIL, SIL (they can do that, because they are not the parties to the case) and are not allowed in the shared household, what can the wife do?  That is why, the courts took a stand that considering the relief the applicant seeks, the question of making a woman as respondent or not depends.  If it is mere compensation, maintenance etc. are the relief, the applicant wants, then the respondent, generally,  need not be MIL and SIL.

1 Like

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     13 October 2010




Bze Justice Dhingra has highest testosterones level in judiciary, what do you have Prabhakar? I suppose you interpret family law as it may please ONLY YOU then cry foul bze some particular posted judgment here donot talk about your favourite subject WIFE - WIFE - WIFE and YEAT AGAIN A WIFE !


Only one Que. 2u: Tell readers where in the DV Act it is mentioned that DV Act can be interpreted RETROSPECTIVELY? Before you answer read thoroughly S. 209 Sub Rule 5 and 6 of Committee on Subordinate Legislation and then read Bill No. 116 – C of 2005 in its raw form as presented by Member before Parliament. Further read thoroughly 76 countries Law; on why no country says that a Statute can be applied retrospectively and only in 2 countries Law was applied retrospectively that also for War Crimes tribunals and for Taxations.

Anything else popping as Interpretation of Statutes, keep justifying as per Point of Law minus your personal philosophies if you can………for WIFE - WIFE - WIFE and YEAT AGAIN ONLY A WIFE clearly forgetting that a women becomes a WIFE only because there is a HUSBAND to form a ‘relationship’ and all your talk here are as if all HUSBANDS should be castrated just after sath phera right in front of holy fire and somehow be given status of a sperm donors and beyond that HUSBAND–cum-FATHER have no role to a WOMEN (read here as WIFE) and no Laws of the land (read here atleast in India) should be for a HUSBAND –cum – FATHERS – PERIOD YES PERIOD AGAIN PERIOD.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query