Plea to quash Domestic Violence Act rejected

HC Stresses Its Need To Protect Women Even In Live-In Cases

Tossing out a petition which challenged the validity of Domestic Violence Act, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday justified the law, saying it was needed to protect women, be they married or in a live-in relationship.

‘‘We find no reason why equal treatment should not be accorded to a wife as well as a woman who has been living with a man as his commonlaw wife or even as a mistress,’’ a bench comprising Justices Vikramjit Sen and P K Bhasin observed while slapping a fine of Rs 3,000 on one Aruna Pramod Shah for ‘‘needlessly wasting public time’’ by insisting that HC examine the merits of the Act.

Shah had first approached HC for quashing criminal proceedings against him on the complaint filed by his livein partner under Domestic Violence Act but later insisted he wished to challenged the entire Act. He had also objected to the Act placing married and live-in relationships on the same footing. HC however said that even in a live-in arrangement, the relationship was ‘‘initiated and perpetuated by the male’’ and it was necessary to be mindful of the fact that in such cases social stigma always sticks to women and not to men.

‘‘Like treatment to both (wives and mistress) does not, in any manner, derogate from the sanctity of marriage since an assumption can fairly be drawn that a livein relationship is invariably initiated and perpetuated by the male,’’ HC noted.

The judges also pointed out that while there were sections under IPC dealing with dowry harassment and cruelty to women, the DV Act addressed the need to protect women from domestic violence resulting in her being thrown out of the home. ‘‘A woman who is facing the brunt of harassment in a domestic relationship is more concerned with being rendered destitute rather than punishment being handed down to the perpetrator of harassment. In this connection the DV Act is legally path breaking since it introduces the right of every women in a domestic relationship to reside in a shared household..,’’ the bench explained.Shah had claimed the Act jeopardises the rights of legally wedded women as the right of a wife stands diluted in accommodating the rights of a mistress. But HC was categorical and termed these ‘‘vicissitudes of marriage against which legal insurance and insulation is impossible.’’

The Times of India 9 April 2008, P 3 Delhi
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd

For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in