In an interesting judgment, a court has rejected a woman’s application under PWDVA (DV Act) for right to residence against her brother.
Here is the main excerpt on how the case was decided:
It further noted that granting relief to her would spell trouble for others and the “justice oriented approach” did not allow for the same.
Comments: Given lack of more details, prima facie it looks that the woman was of more than abundant means and the case has somewhat frivolous standing. For example, the sister in this case may not have good relations with her brother. Does it mean that brother is bound to give residence to her. What if she gets the residence and then creates trouble for other family members?
Also, it seems right on the point that given the woman was not staying with brother for last many years and was in fact abroad, the concept of “domestic relationship” as given under PWDVA cannot be assumed except by far-fetched imagination.
On the other hand, the fact that the courts have not probably given even few favourable verdicts to women who are not wives/live-in relationships; but they have given rights to women who had nothing but few casual sex encounters with friend/colleague; it seems the PWDVA (Domestic violence act) is just the medicine doctor ordered for a disgruntled woman who wants to settle scores or have a comfortable life at expense of men.