Exclusive HOLI Discounts!
Get Courses and Combos at Upto 50% OFF!
Upgrad
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

SHARAD CHANDRA DANEJ (Asstt. Manager)     07 November 2016

Sec 2(q) pwpdv act 2005

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.

 

“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.”

Thank me if you like this by clicking on thumbs up below my profile.

 



Learning

 6 Replies

Sachin (N.A)     07 November 2016

This judgement of SC is highly wrong in my view.

 

See the reality of DV Act:

 

Replying to a question on how many people were convicted for domestic violence after the 2005 Act came into force, Rijiju said that as per inputs provided by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), during 2014, a total of 13 persons have been convicted under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

He informed the House that the NCRB started collecting data on the Act only since 2014.

According to the reply, a total of 426 cases under the Act were registered in 2014 of which charge sheet was filed in 312 cases. Conviction happened in just nine (9) cases. Trial completed in 19.1 percent cases. Out of 693 persons arrested in these cases, 639 were charge sheeted. Only 13 were, however, convicted.

Source : https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/13-convicted-in-2014-under-Domestic-Violence-Act/articleshow/52221403.cms

Moreover DV Act is gender based law and now even minors can be respondent in DV Act. 

1 Like

(Guest)
Case case khelo Ab.. Now more cases. More courts.

Ms.Usha Kapoor (CEO)     08 November 2016

 

There are 2 Replies to this message

 

SHARAD CHANDRA DANEJ


Asstt. Manager
[ Scorecard : 347] Thank Contributor : Send PM
Posted about 13 hours ago Quote Report Abuse
 

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.

 

“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.

In my view males have stronger bodily strength than women. By removing adult male and  thus  making geneder neutral is wrong and erroneous with respect to the hon'bleSupreme court.It is males  who perpetrate DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ON THEIR  WEAK AND HAPLESS WIVES. SO adult male should be restored and section 2 Q should  be restored.as itis constitutional.If you appreciate  this answer plwae convey  my forum thanks.

Sachin (N.A)     08 November 2016

Imagine a student of 10 th class, defending case of "harrasing a women" of his/her own house.

Who will hear the case juvenile justice board or Mahila court.

 

Sachin (N.A)     08 November 2016

I think SC should give orders for Anticipatory bail along with birth certificate of male child

Sidharth   08 November 2016

Good topic for debate


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register