The petitioner in the instant case was a Muslim male who was aggrieved by certain acts of his wife's family and his wife.
Date of judgement:
18th April, 2017
Justice Anand Byrareddy
Plaintiffs – Mohammed Zakir
Defendants – Smt Shabana
The Court in this case held that appeal under the DV Act can be filed by anyone, whether male or female.
- The petitioner in the instant case was a Muslim male who was aggrieved by certain acts of his wife's family and his wife.
- He subsequently invoked certain provisions of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act.
- The Sessions Court was of the opinion that the Act does not envisage any male being aggrieved by domestic violence and is only intended to protect the interests of women.
- Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court of Karnataka
- Whether DV act can be invoked by any aggrieved male?
Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- The High Court observed that the issue at hand had been dealt by the Supreme Court in the case of Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165 where the Apex Court struck down the words "adult male" in Section 2(q).
- The Court held that after the deletion of the aforementioned expression, any person, male or female, can file an appeal under the DV Act.
- Hence the complaint could not have been dismissed merely on the ground that it was filed by a male.
- The Court, thus directed the Magistrate to entertain the petition and reconsider it from inception.
The judgment was withdrawn by the High Court by an order dated 28.04.2017 on the grounds that it was patently erroneous. (Mohd. Zakir v. Shabana, Crl. Petition No. 2351 of 2017, dated 28-04-2018)
Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court where it was held that the High Court could not have exercised it's powers under Section 362 of Code of Criminal Procedure for correction on merits. Subsequently, the Apex Court set aside the order dated 18.04.2017 and directed the Sessions Court to dispose the matter expeditiously (Mohammed Zakir vs Shabana CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).926/2018)
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement