Protection Under Domestic Violence Act Not Available To Husband Or Male Member Of Family: Delhi High Court Stays Case Filed By Husband Against Wife
Expressing a prima facie view, the Delhi High Court has said that the protection under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not available to a husband or male member of the family, in view of sections 2(a) of the statute.Section 2(a) defines an “aggrieved person” as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the 'respondent' and alleges to have...
Expressing a prima facie view, the Delhi High Court has said that the protection under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is not available to a husband or male member of the family, in view of sections 2(a) of the statute.
Section 2(a) defines an “aggrieved person” as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the 'respondent' and alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence.
Justice Jasmeet Singh was hearing a plea moved by a wife challenging the proceedings initiated by her husband under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
It is the wife’s case that as per the scheme and object of the statute, protection under the Act is qua an “aggrieved person” which is limited only to a “woman” under section 2(a) and thus, a complaint filed by the husband is ex-facie not maintainable.
“Prima facie it seems in view of Section 2(a), the protection of the Act is not available to a male member of the family and more particularly the husband,” the court observed while issuing notice in the plea.
The court also stayed the proceedings in the complaint case filed by the husband pending before a Metropolitan Magistrate of Karkardooma courts till February 14, the next date of hearing.
The petition filed through Advocate Ashima Mandla submits that even under section 498A of IPC, only a female person is an aggrieved person whereas the accused or perpetrator may be male or female.
“…. the definition of aggrieved as it stands under Section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 remains unchanged by the legislature and the same has not been expanded by judicial intervention to include male persons as aggrieved party for purposes of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,” the plea states.
The petition places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, stating that it expanded the scope of section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, which defines ‘Respondent’ or perpetrator, to be gender neutral instead of being limited to male persons.
However, the plea adds that the definition of “aggrieved person” under section 2(a), which is limited to a woman for the purpose of recourse under the Act, was kept unchanged by the Supreme Court.
“….the Ld. Trial Court admitting proceedings qua the Petitioner-wife under the Protection of Women of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shall tantamount to judicial overreach,” the plea reads.
Title: NT v. VT
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 107