Men Rights India

Fight against Legal Terrorism

  • Contact
  • Bare Acts
    • IPC 498A bare act
    • CrPC 125 Bare Act
    • The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – bare act
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Bare Act
  • 498a
    • 498a Tips
    • 498a Info
    • 498a Judgments
  • DV Act
    • DV Act Tips
    • DV Act Info
    • DV Act Judgments
    • Free and Paid eBooks on Law Basics, Maintenance, Divorce, Child Custody, Alimony
  • Maintenance
    • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
    • Maintenance HMA 24 Judgments
    • Free and Paid eBooks on Law Basics, Maintenance, Divorce, Child Custody, Alimony
  • Child Custody
    • Child Custody Visitation Judgments
    • Child Custody Visitation News
    • Free and Paid eBooks on Law Basics, Maintenance, Divorce, Child Custody, Alimony
  • Misc
    • Divorce Judgments
    • Law Misuse
    • Marriage
    • Misandry
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Important Posts
You are here: Home » DV Act Judgments » Does Karnataka HC judgment allows for DV complaints on wives by husbands?

Does Karnataka HC judgment allows for DV complaints on wives by husbands?

27 Apr 2017 By videv 3 Comments

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, or PWDVA, 2005 or DV Act in short, is very clear on one point.  It is only for protection of women (practically speaking only wives use it) in a household.  The name of the act itself makes it very clear.

👉(Read Online eBook): How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act 👈

Update 28/04/2017: This order has been withdrawn, see end of post for screenshot from Karnataka HC website.

Then this High Court of Karnataka judgment (text below) comes along, which seems to redefine the whole DV Act itself, by suggesting that a complaint filed by husband on wives and in-laws should be considered.  And it refers to this Supreme Court judgment (Harsora vs Harsora) which changed definition of DV Act to allow for respondent to be both male or female.  Following is the excerpt from Karnataka HC  judgment which refers to above SC judgment:

In this connection, it is to be noticed that the said issue was subject matter of an appeal before the Apex Court in the  case  of    Hiral  P.  Harsora  v.  Kusum  Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165,        wherein the Supreme Court has struck down a portion of Section 2(a) on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the phrase “adult male” as appearing in Section 2(q) stood  deleted.  If the said sub-section is read after deleting the expression ‘adult male’, it would appear that any person, whether male or female,  aggrieved  and alleging violation  of the provisions of the Act could invoke the provisions under the Act. In that view of the matter, the petitioner’s complaint could not have been trashed  on  the  ground  that  the  Act  does  not  contemplate provision for men and it could only be in respect of women.

 

That SC judgment though very long in text does a very short and simple thing: it deletes two words “adult male’ from Section 2(q) of PWDVA which was used to define as to against whom a DV complaint could be filed.  It never went into constitutionality of Section 2(a) of DV Act, but only into constitutionality of Section 2(q) which was challenged in front of Supreme Court.  That SC judgment says clearly in beginning:

2. The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 25.9.2014 of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It raises an important question as to the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as “the 2005 Act”).

So the Harsora vs Harsora SC judgment was only about constitutionality of Section 2(q) of DV Act.  The final paras of the judgment give detail on what the SC has amended in DV Act:

46. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.  Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stands deleted.

Section 2(q) before Harsora vs Harsora judgment:

(q) “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.

Section 2(q) after Harsora vs Harsora judgment:

(q) “respondent” means any 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

That judgment allowed for change in definition in against whom a complaint could be made, and now it includes females also as respondents.  However, it never touched the definition of aggrieved person, who can only be a woman under DV Act.  As per Section 2(a):

(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;

So this Karnataka HC judgment which allows for husband’s DV complaint against wife and in-laws to be considered by referring to above SC judgment is not right in law.  It seems to suggest that SC judgment had changed definition of Section 2(a) whereas that was never even a point raised.   If the point was to be made that it is not morally or constitutionally right to give protection from domestic violence only to women in household, then that argument can be made on its own merits provided the PWDVA Section 2(a) is challenged appropriately of course, but referring to Harsora vs Harsora judgment by SC is not right since that judgment went only into question of whether females can be respondents under DV Act, not whether males can be aggrieved persons who can file complaint under DV Act.

READ:  Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) court denies interim maintenance under DV Act to wife qualified as beautician

This judgment suggests that one should rely on one’s own reading of law and judgments, and not blindly follow authority.

——————————————-
Full Judgment text below:
——————————————-

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 18  DAY OF APRIL 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2351 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

Mohammed Zakir,
S/o. Shakeel Ahamed,
Aged 36 years,
th
No.23/B, 10  cross,
Kuppaswamy Layout,
Arabic College Post,
Nagawara, Bangalore – 45.
… Petitioner

(By Sri. Tajuddin, Advocate)

AND:

1.     Smt. Shabana,
Ex. W/o. Mohammed Zakir,
D/o. Mohammed Yunus,
Aged about 34 years,

2.     Sri. Parveez,
S/o. Mohammed Yunus,
Age 31 years,

2

3.     Sri. Javeed,
S/o. Mohammed Yunus,
Age 29 Years,

4.     Smt. Nasreen,
W/o. Mohammed Yunus,
Age 54 years,

5.     Sri. Mohammed Yunus,
S/o. Mohammed Hafiz,
Age 58 years,

Respondent Nos. 1 to 5
th
are residing at No.20, 20  Main,
th
5  Phase, Ramaswamy Layout, JP Nagar,
Bangalore -560 078.
… Respondents
(Notice to respondent dispensed with)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash that this
Hon’ble court may be pleased to set aside the order dated
02.02.2017 passed by the LXVIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore in Crl.A.No.95/2017 filed to recall the order
dated 25.01.2017 in the Court of Prl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bangalore order dated 04.03.2017.

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the court made the following:

O R D E R

Heard  the  learned  Counsel  for  the  petitioner.    The

petitioner is a Muslim male.  He is aggrieved by certain acts of

3

his  wife  and  her  family  and  therefore  had  invoked  the

provisions  of  the  Protection  of  Women  from  Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘DV Act’, for

brevity).  The court below was not impressed with the same as

the Act clearly is loaded in favour of women only and it does

not contemplate any male person being aggrieved by domestic

violence.  In this connection, it is to be noticed that the said

issue was subject matter of an appeal before the Apex Court in

the  case  of    Hiral  P.  Harsora  v.  Kusum  Narottamdas

Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165,        wherein the Supreme Court has

struck down a portion of Section 2(a) on the ground that it is

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the

phrase “adult male” as appearing in Section 2(q) stood  deleted.

If the said sub-section is read after deleting the expression

‘adult male’, it would appear that any person, whether male or

female,  aggrieved  and alleging violation  of the provisions of

the Act could invoke the provisions under the Act. In that view

of the matter, the petitioner’s complaint could not have been

4

trashed  on  the  ground  that  the  Act  does  not  contemplate

provision for men and it could only be in respect of women.

2.  In that view of the matter, since cognizance was never

taken  by  the  Magistrate  and    process  was  not  issued,  the

question of giving them a right of hearing either by the Sessions

READ:  Shared household under DV Act clarified in 2006 SC judgment

Court or by this Court does not arise.  It is for the Magistrate to

reconsider the case from inception.  On the question whether

the provisions of the DV Act can be invoked by the petitioner

or not is no longer    res integra.   The petition would therefore

have to be entertained.

With that observation, the petition  is allowed.

 

Sd/-
JUDGE

nv

Case status as on 28/04/2017:

20170428-DV-on-wife-CRLP-2351-2017-withdrawn-Karnataka-HC

Questions about this Article?

Ask in Telegram Group Men Rights India Q&A  (Also include link to this Article when you post question)

👉Free and Paid eBooks on Law Basics, Maintenance, Divorce, Child Custody, Alimony

Related Posts

  1. No monetary relief under Section 20 of DV Act (PWDVA) unless domestic violence proved – Mumbai HC
  2. Interim relief under DV Act cannot be granted without conducting inquiry as per CrPC summons case – Karnataka HC
  3. Chennai HC exhorts magistrates to award lumpsum amounts at interim orders under DV Act
  4. Include baraat of husband’s relatives into PWDVA (DV Act) – and be empowered

Filed Under: DV Act Judgments Tagged With: HC Judgment, PWDVA(DV Act)

Comments

  1. Ashish Chaurasiya says

    June 17, 2017 at 6:22 pm

    I fighting DV, 498A and a divorce case. I’m paying maintenance every month. I’m nit bound to pay the school fee of the kid whom I v=never took home. All the orders have passed in her favor without asking for proper evidence of the allegations she has put on me. What should I do except suicide?

    Reply
    • videv says

      June 18, 2017 at 10:38 pm

      >>I’m nit bound to pay the school fee of the kid whom I v=never took home

      There is no law or judgment like that.

      >>All the orders have passed in her favor without asking for proper evidence of t

      If that is the case you can easily appeal and get relief

      Reply
  2. SASANKA MISHRA says

    May 2, 2017 at 5:59 pm

    The Karnatak HC judgement, though withdrawn, sets in motion, a wave against the nonsensical provision of more than equal rights to women in the 2nd decade of the 21st century when W and M are equal in all respects(though opposite in direction?).In fact, apart from the IPC 498A, there is no other special Act which treats M and W so glaringly different, as the PWDV Act. Effort must be made to take out the W from the Act to make it gender-neutral like the Dowry Prohibition Act, Hindu Marriage Act, in the spirit of our Constitution.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Men Rights India numbers For 498A/406/Dowry Case/DV/Maintenance/child custody-visitation/abusive-wife/false cases, CALL volunteers' phone lines:

👉Kannada/ Hindi/ English: Call Sharath +919738010456
👉Free guidance (10-15 min)
👉Paid Guidance (For 30 min or more), click to pay

Join our WhatsApp/Facebook groups

Join Our Telegram Channel for FREE updates

Social

Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Instagram

Search this website

Important/Must Read/Permanent Posts

  • How to assess your false case and marriage breakup probability
  • How to take action against police or magistrate for 498A arrest without following CrPC 41 41A?
  • Why Indian men should be very careful in filing divorce
  • What to do if CAW cell/police/advocate is putting pressure to compromise
  • Innocent until proven guilty is the law, use it!
  • Advice to men on 498a, maintenance, DV, divorce, child custody, what else
  • How to find and manage your lawyer in 498a, DV, CrPC 125, divorce, RCR cases
  • How to fight false cases of DV, Maintenance, CrPC 125, 498a etc
  • How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • Notes and questions on court procedures
  • What should be my stand in court?
  • Understanding the divorce industry in India


Take Quizzes to test your legal knowledge!

Book: How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act


👉(Read Online eBook)👈
(Buy Print book)
(Buy Digital eBook)
(Information about the Book)

Contribute via UPI: videv@upi / videv@icici / videv@paytm

Today’s Popular Posts

  • How to fight false cases of DV, maintenance, CrPC…
  • How to file objections/written statement to…
  • Procedure of CAW (Crime against women) cell,…
  • Section 41, 41A, 41B of CrPC which govern arrest by…
  • How to draft a child custody (GWC) petition
  • How to complain against judges of trial courts, High…
  • Delhi HC Judgment – Secretly taken Audio…
  • Contact
  • How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125…
  • Shared household under DV Act clarified in 2006 SC judgment

Tags

498A Activism Arrest Child Support Child_Custody_Visitation Commando Gyan Commando Strategy Commando Techniques CrPC CrPC 125 Cruelty Divorce Domestic Violence Industry Dowry DV Act Judgments Evidence False Case False Rape Family Law Feminazis Feminist Figures Feminist Propaganda Fight Back HC Judgment Hindu Marriage Act HMA 24 Law Making Law Misuse Laws Legal Info live-in Maintenance Marriage Men Rights NCW NRI Police Press Release PWDVA(DV Act) Rape RTI SC Judgment Supreme Court WCD Women Reservation Bill

The Benefits of Reading Men Rights India!

before reading MRI
Before


after reading MRI
After

email: I am facing false DV case. I love your blog. It really have me boost to fight this case and I feel so happy that you guys are doing such a commendable work.


comment: Your survey is 100 % true. whatever is written in this blog matches more than 90 % of my marriage life situation.


comment: The Article is really great, it’s actually happening in my life. whatever is mentioned here is the tactics are used by my wife and still going on….


comment: This is a very good article, and some points mentioned here are the real reasons males are threatened to shell out the maintenance amount


comment: This document is very help for me,becoise i am sufring for false dowry case and fiting for them.so thank for to u.


comment: The web content is very useful for its diversity and especially for atrocities committed upon men, emitting a clarion call for them to rise and defend their rights and hood.


comment: Thanks you People doing very may allah grant you Success. Ameen.


comment: This is very helpful. Thanks a lot. Your work is really a morale booster..
Search judgments at Bharat Law
Read judgments at Bharat Law
IPC 498A Judgments
IPC 406 Judgments
DV Act Judgments
CrPC 125 Judgments
Child Custody Judgments

Author on Facebook

Vivek Deveshwar

Free eBook: Surviving the Legal Jungle

Surviving-the-Legal-Jungle-Cover-Image

Featured Posts

High Courts doing what only Supreme Court can

22 Sep 2010 By videv Leave a Comment

Valentine’s day — should men boycott or celebrate it?

14 Feb 2014 By videv Leave a Comment

Prima-facie IPC 406 charge dropped but 498A charge framed against accused husband – Delhi MM court

22 Apr 2015 By videv 2 Comments

Mumbai HC: Man may have to pay for wife’s education based on assurance!

4 Feb 2014 By videv Leave a Comment

Audio recording between husband and wife is admissible evidence – Mumbai HC, 2011

7 Oct 2016 By videv 1 Comment

Equality for Men – Myth or Reality?

Download IMD handbook
Download IMD handbook

Recent Comments

  • Rajesh on Advice to women on IPC 498a, DV case, maintenance, divorce etc.
  • DHAVAL JOAHI on Visitation rights – 1
  • videv on Procedure of CAW (Crime against women) cell, counselling/mediation etc
  • videv on Complaint against male abuse in Asian Paints Damp Proof advertisement -advertiser advised by ASCI to modify or remove it
  • Gurpreet Singh on Procedure of CAW (Crime against women) cell, counselling/mediation etc

RSS Feeds

  • All Posts
  • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
  • 498A Judgments

Archives

Copyright © 2009-2021 · Vivek Deveshwar · Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Bare Acts
    • IPC 498A bare act
    • CrPC 125 Bare Act
    • The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – bare act
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Bare Act
  • 498a
    • 498a Tips
    • 498a Info
    • 498a Judgments
  • DV Act
    • DV Act Tips
    • DV Act Info
    • DV Act Judgments
    • Free and Paid eBooks on Law Basics, Maintenance, Divorce, Child Custody, Alimony
  • Maintenance
    • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
    • Maintenance HMA 24 Judgments
    • Free and Paid eBooks on Law Basics, Maintenance, Divorce, Child Custody, Alimony
  • Child Custody
    • Child Custody Visitation Judgments
    • Child Custody Visitation News
    • Free and Paid eBooks on Law Basics, Maintenance, Divorce, Child Custody, Alimony
  • Misc
    • Divorce Judgments
    • Law Misuse
    • Marriage
    • Misandry
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Important Posts