Now,women can also be booked under DV Act,as per SC ruling

@Tajobindia - nothing can help a wrong man & his family. Remember this .

@ Ashutosh ji - i wonder, you are lawyer and you think that just husband and their family is suffering, what about the wives, who are kicked from their matrimonial house, their husbands keep dying for remarriages, such husbands doesn't even care for their kids, and doesn't give a single penny. What will you say about such ruthless husbands.

I pity, MALE CHAUVINISM

Now women can also be booked under DV Act as per SC ruling

- a very good news. today's daughter in law, tomorrow's mother in law.

such husbands doesn't even care for their kids, and doesn't give a single penny

- why they did such anti nature attitude, will be known when that husband will appear.

here we see only one side of the coin.

That remains tru for almost all posts Arup Ji. We see men asking for advice, but we do not hear form their couter parts, do we? 

Time and again the same old and defeated arguments.  Several times the courts faced this question that can a woman be respondent in DV case?  One by one several courts, after going thoroughly each and every provision, objectives of the Act came to the same conclusion that a woman can become respondent in D.V. Case.  For example in "Afzalunnisa Begum & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. & Another (I) 2010 DMC 654 (DB), the A.P. High Court over-ruled its single bench decision in Smt. Meenakumar Renuka & Ors. Vs. Smt. Meenakumar Reddy & Ors. held the same view.  Similarly, mostly popularised "Varsha Kapoor Vs. UOI & Ors. (II) 2010 DMC 10 (DB), the Delhi High Court through Justice Sikri gave a well reasoned judgment holding that a woman can be a respondent in DV case.  Before filing this Varsh Kapoor's case, some members of this forum, beating their own drums, downloaded the entire petition to be filed before High Court with a forecast of 100 per cent surity that the Hon'ble High Court would be going to deliver the judgment in their favour.  When the petition was dismissed and they were ridiculed for their over-confidence by some members of this club, they again started to beat their own drums saying that the Apex Court is going to pronounce the judgment in their favour.  Now what would they do as the Apex Court has delivered its verdict finally and conclusively.   Do not worry, we are going to hear that there will be review petitions, curative petitions and reference to larger bench and also reference to constitutional bench and those supporting judgments are ridiculed by calling names.  Even the judges, who discharged their judicial responsibilities are not spared and they are called "corrupt judiciary".

prabhakar (advocate-Delhi)

(M)9958670740

karlprabhakar@gmail.com

Time and again the same old and defeated arguments.  Several times the courts faced this question that can a woman be respondent in DV case?  One by one several courts, after going thoroughly each and every provision, objectives of the Act came to the same conclusion that a woman can become respondent in D.V. Case.  For example in "Afzalunnisa Begum & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. & Another (I) 2010 DMC 654 (DB), the A.P. High Court over-ruled its single bench decision in Smt. Meenakumar Renuka & Ors. Vs. Smt. Meenakumar Reddy & Ors. held the same view.  Similarly, mostly popularised "Varsha Kapoor Vs. UOI & Ors. (II) 2010 DMC 10 (DB), the Delhi High Court through Justice Sikri gave a well reasoned judgment holding that a woman can be a respondent in DV case.  Before filing this Varsh Kapoor's case, some members of this forum, beating their own drums, downloaded the entire petition to be filed before High Court with a forecast of 100 per cent surity that the Hon'ble High Court would be going to deliver the judgment in their favour.  When the petition was dismissed and they were ridiculed for their over-confidence by some members of this club, they again started to beat their own drums saying that the Apex Court is going to pronounce the judgment in their favour.  Now what would they do as the Apex Court has delivered its verdict finally and conclusively.   Do not worry, we are going to hear that there will be review petitions, curative petitions and reference to larger bench and also reference to constitutional bench and those supporting judgments are ridiculed by calling names.  Even the judges, who discharged their judicial responsibilities are not spared and they are called "corrupt judiciary".

prabhakar (advocate-Delhi)

(M)9958670740

karlprabhakar@gmail.com

Time and again the same old and defeated arguments.  Several times the courts faced this question that can a woman be respondent in DV case?  One by one several courts, after going thoroughly each and every provision, objectives of the Act came to the same conclusion that a woman can become respondent in D.V. Case.  For example in "Afzalunnisa Begum & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. & Another (I) 2010 DMC 654 (DB), the A.P. High Court over-ruled its single bench decision in Smt. Meenakumar Renuka & Ors. Vs. Smt. Meenakumar Reddy & Ors. held the same view.  Similarly, mostly popularised "Varsha Kapoor Vs. UOI & Ors. (II) 2010 DMC 10 (DB), the Delhi High Court through Justice Sikri gave a well reasoned judgment holding that a woman can be a respondent in DV case.  Before filing this Varsh Kapoor's case, some members of this forum, beating their own drums, downloaded the entire petition to be filed before High Court with a forecast of 100 per cent surity that the Hon'ble High Court would be going to deliver the judgment in their favour.  When the petition was dismissed and they were ridiculed for their over-confidence by some members of this club, they again started to beat their own drums saying that the Apex Court is going to pronounce the judgment in their favour.  Now what would they do as the Apex Court has delivered its verdict finally and conclusively.   Do not worry, we are going to hear that there will be review petitions, curative petitions and reference to larger bench and also reference to constitutional bench and those supporting judgments are ridiculed by calling names.  Even the judges, who discharged their judicial responsibilities are not spared and they are called "corrupt judiciary".

prabhakar (advocate-Delhi)

(M)9958670740

karlprabhakar@gmail.com

The DV act clearly mentions that the aggrieved person can make the "relatives" of husband respondent.So where's the confusion?Does "realtive" mean a male?

@ Avinash Kaur: Without going into the merits of your contentions, in my considered opinion your statement regarding the judiciary is ex facie contemtuous.

In my considered opinion the ruling gives the right interpretation of the proviso of section 2 (q) which reads:

"respondent" means 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:

Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner;

Thus it can be seen that the defination of a Respondent under section 2 (q) has a proviso which widens the scope of who should be a Respondent when it says that a complaint can be filed against a relative of the husband. Here the gender of relative is not mentioned and if the legislature had intended to exclude a female person from the purview of the DV Act then it would have expressly done so.

Hence the ruling is sound in law notwithstanding the fact that the DV Act could be misused to harass innocent in-laws.

it's good there are provisions to include female relatives also,since max. taunts,comments,jealousy,emotional dramas are mainly dun by conniving mum inlaws for gaining son's attention and sympathy of foolish blind relatives......blinded by "becharapan " of these so called "mothers" of sons.

otherwise they wud be having a gala time,after adequately showing their power on innocent daughter inlaws.

they need to be taught some good strong lessons by law.

As per the Supreme Court's ruling when a femal can be made as a respondent because of the defination clause and the word aggreived person, and domestic relationship having been defined the mother-in-law if subjected to domestic violence by daughter in law the mother in law can lodge the complaint against the daughter in law because the act has been framed for the purpose of protection of women from domestic violence.  If the act intended to protect only daughter in law or the wife alone it is in violation of article 14.

V.Ramakrishnan.

Meenal Ji

  How could this be equality of s*xes one guys cant implicate women under the same law?

Respected Revolutionary,

This act intended to protect women but if it is only to protect the daughter in law and not the mother in law, will it not be violation of the equal protection of law and equality before law as contemplated under article 14 of the Indian Constitution?