Professional Documents
Culture Documents
In many nations, the phrase "domestic violence" is used to describe violence between intimate partners, but it also includes the abuse of
children, elders, and any household member. Although domestic violence does not specifically target women, there are many instances of
violence and abuse against women, especially when it comes from people the victims know. At least 30% of all women in relationships have
experienced physical or sexual violence by their partners, according to the World Health Organization, which estimates that one in every three
women will experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime, world over.
According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4), 2015–16, 30% of Indian women between the ages of 15 and 49 had been the
victims of physical abuse. According to the study, an alarming 83 percent of married women who report enduring physical, sexual, or
emotional abuse name their husbands as the primary offenders, followed by abuse from their husbands' moms (56 percent), fathers (33
percent), and brothers (27 percent).
These numbers don't fully represent the information on violence against women. This is primarily due to the predominance of traditional
societal standards and the stigmatisation of victims of sexual or domestic abuse, which leads to a vast underreporting of incidents. In addition,
women feel uneasy going to the police because they fear that if their partners are detained, they would be released to even worse abuse and
that in the interim, their in-laws or other people might harass them.
T l l C d
Top controversial Domestic Violence Cases in India
Lalita Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2018)
Facts of the Case
The Complainant, who was not the Respondent's legally wedded wife, approached the court to obtain maintenance under the terms of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, assuming that she would not be permitted to maintenance under Section 125 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the case of Lalita Toppo v. the State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2018), which was heard by the Supreme
Court of India.
The appellant in this case was in a live-in relationship with her partner, with whom she had a child. The Gumla Family Court granted the
appellant's request for support when the couple separated, granting her Rs 2000 per month and Rs 1000 for her child. In response to the
appellant's appeal, the High Court reversed the family court's decision and ruled in the partner's favour. Following that, the Appellant went to
the Supreme Court.
The Court further noted that, in accordance with the Domestic Violence Act's provisions, economic abuse is also considered a form of
domestic violence.
She was once subjected to severe physical and mental abuse in her marital house to the point of fainting, but no doctor was contacted for a
check-up.
If Sunita Malik didn't force her parents to sell their land in Hauz Qazi, her mother and brother-in-law threatened to kill her and abduct her. As
a result, it was determined that the complainant, Sunita Mailk, had endured terrible treatment from her husband and in-laws, including
physical torture. To coerce Sunita Malik or anyone connected to her into fulfilling an unlawful obligation for both moveable and immovable
property, harassment was used.
The Delhi High Court had to determine in this case whether a defendant may be found guilty under dowry Laws. The Court determined that a
person is not subject to double jeopardy if they are found guilty under both Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1956 and Section 498A
of the IPC. The Court determined that Section 498A, IPC, and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are separate laws since Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act only punishes acts of cruelty committed against newlywed women, whereas Section 498A also punishes the mere
demand of dowry. This leads one to the conclusion that a person could be charged with a crime under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
as well as Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Hiralal P Harsora and Ors vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors (2016)
Facts of the Case
The plaintiffs in this case were a mother-daughter duo named Pushpa and Kusum Narottam Harsora. TheyWelcome
made atocomplaint
Rest The Case!
saying that
Howmay
domestic abuse was committed by Pradeep (son/brother), his wife, and her two sisters. Since a complaint may
onlyI assist
be madeyou?
against a "adult
male" in accordance with Section 2(q), the Respondents requested that the Metropolitan Magistrate free Pradeep's wife and two
sisters/daughters. Application from the Respondents was turned down.
The definitions under Sections 2(a), 2(f), and 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act shall be taken into consideration
when reading Section 2(q) of the aforementioned Act, the Bombay High Court concluded. In essence, this ensured that both the "adult male
member" and female family members may be the subject of a complaint. However, a domestic abuse complaint cannot be made exclusively
against the female household members. Male adult must be a co-respondent. As a result, the Court did not define "adult male person" further.
The mother and daughter duo then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ.
The adult man was eliminated from the definition of "Respondent" by the Supreme Court, who ruled that it was not based on any discernible
distinction that had anything to do with the goal that was being pursued. In the same case, the Supreme Court made it clear that women and
children are among those who may file claims for relief under the DV Act. The phrase "adult male person" in Section 2(q) cannot be used to
limit the word "Respondent" in Section 2(q) or those who can be considered perpetrators of violence against women or against whom
remedies under the DV Act are enforceable. As a result, even against female members and minors, the DV Act's remedies are available.
The HC adopted a similar attitude, striking the names of R2 and R3 from the proceedings, and directing the Appellant to vacate the marital
residence. This is why the appeal was made.
Then, in accordance with Section 12 of the DV Act, the Respondent submitted a petition to the Magistrate.
The Magistrate gave the wife temporary relief in the amount of Rs 6,000 and thereafter issued a protection/residence order in accordance with
Sections 18 and 19 of the DV Act to safeguard her right to live in her marital home in Mathura.
The husband, who had been in the military, had retired and had submitted an application to have his wife removed from the public housing.
In light of this, the Magistrate ordered the petitioner to provide his wife permission to live on the first floor of their marital residence or, in the
event that neither of those options is practical, to locate alternative housing nearby or to pay Rs 10,000 in rental fees.
Since she disagreed with the Magistrate's ruling, she preferred to appeal.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Additional Sessions court stated that "the claim of a woman living Welcome
in a domestic
to relationship
Rest The or residing
Case!
together prior to 26.10.2006 was not maintainable" since "the applicant left the married residence on 4.7.2005
How may andI the Act came
assist you?into effect on
26.10.2006."
The HC looked at this legal matter after receiving an appeal. Despite the fact that the action was done before the Act went into effect, it was
ordered to be maintained.
The Delhi High Court, in our opinion, has also correctly decided that even a wife who had previously shared a household but was not doing so
at the time the Act went into effect would still be entitled to the protection of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. A suitable portion of the
petitioner's home and 10,000 rupees per month for her support were granted by the court due to the respondent's advanced age. The Act should
be interpreted in favour of women who are domestic violence victims because its purpose was to protect women from abuse. The Legislature
wanted to extend protection to women who had experienced domestic abuse before the Act was passed. The definitions of "aggrieved
individuals" and "domestic relationship" in the Act make this clear.
Since the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a civil remedy and the criminal offences covered by the Act's penalties cannot have occurred before
it went into effect, retroactively executing the Act is not in violation of Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution.
The High Court turned down the Appellants' appeal asking for the summons to be cancelled. As a result, the Appellants appealed the High
Court's ruling to the Supreme Court.
The egregious misapplication of Section 498A of the IPC has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled
that the dowry-related offences should be prosecuted and that the husband and married man should not be harassed or persecuted any more.
Additionally, this group wants to ensure that the rights of innocent persons are restored.
Arrest and court remand are not the answer since "the spouse and his family members may have various points of view in the conflict." Every
legal system's ultimate objective is to protect the innocent while punishing the evil.
The deceased's sister-in-law and brother-in-law, the current Appellants, cannot be established to have abused the victim in exchange for any
such dowry demand based on the material provided.
Furthermore, it cannot be established by circumstantial evidence that the appellants and the deceased's spouse shared any common motives in
the conduct of the crime.
Furthermore, it is abundantly clear from the supporting documentation that they once lived in a different village.
The Respondents' written apology was presented on 5.8.2008 in front of respected villagers as a result of Sube Singh, the petitioner's spouse,
also filing a complaint against them with the Sarpanch of Village Gaud. After a brief period of normalcy, they quickly resumed their offensive
behaviour. As a result, the complaint was submitted after exhausting all other avenues for domestic abuse protection.
The Trial Court found that none of the witnesses on record proved a fact to the effect that the Respondents and the petitioner were sharing a
home and that the Respondents had engaged in domestic abuse against them after considering the provisions of the Act.
The trial court further decided that no allegations of violence of any kind were made against the property of the joint home. The Ld.
Magistrate threw out the case. An appeal that was brought before the High Court was also denied.
In accordance with Section 12(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, a person may ask a magistrate for assistance or financial compensation for
losses suffered by her or her child as a result of domestic violence. However, this exclusion does not apply to maintenance orders made
pursuant to Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law.
The woman claimed that after her husband passed away, she was forced out of her marital home and evicted along with her child, leaving her
and her child without any means of support.
Conclusion
A very promising piece of legislation that combines civil and criminal penalties to provide effective remedies to women who become victims
of domestic abuse is the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The law, among other things,
contains provisions for protection officers, medical facilities, and no-cost orders to help wronged women defend themselves and their loved
ones. The Act is not without problems, though. It is obvious that the Act's implementation has to be improved.
In particular, if the person who has been wronged comes from a low-income or socially disadvantaged area, officers commonly fail to file an
First Information Report (FIR), which is the first step in starting a police investigation. It is also true that the DV Act has not adequately
addressed the problems that both men and women face in relation to domestic violence, and that the law is usually implemented incorrectly
when it is. In order to prevent domestic violence from creating fear in the hearts of innocent people, as most men do, and from providing the
other gender a tool for extortion, society needs more gender-neutral laws that treat men and women equally in these situations. The DV Act
initially seems to be biased against women. To prevent abuse, advance gender equality, and provide just justice, the DV Act should be revised
to include more gender-neutral provisions.
Submit
Knowledge Bank
Amendments Simplified
Bare Acts
Books
News
Tips
USEFUL LINKS
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Advisory Board
About Us
Document Template
EMAIL US
info@restthecase.com
CALL US
+919284293610
+919356226713
FOLLOW US ON
Developed By :Artifexmedia
Copyright @2023 All Rights Reserved