Skip to main content

Woman can invoke Domestic Violence Act against husband’s mother, sister

In a landmark order, the Bombay High Court has ruled a woman can invoke criminal provisions of the Domestic Violence Act against female relatives of her husband. Hearing a plea filed by Mumbai resident Sachin Patil and his family, challenging the case filed by his estranged wife, especially against his mother and sister, Justice Ravindra Ghuge said the special law to tackle domestic violence can't be restricted only to the husband's male relatives.

"Since the 2005 Act is aimed at protecting women, the submissions of Patil, if accepted, would create an insulation for the female members of the husband's family who may go unpunished for acts amounting to domestic violence," said Justice Ghuge, adding, "When specific allegations are made against the lady members of the husband's family like the mother-in-law, or the sister of the husband etc, the complainant can't be rendered remedy-less by precluding her from arraigning such female members who could be tried for offences of assault or any type of the offence (as per the law)."

The HC also underlined the importance of the provisions of the law for protecting woman from violence that occurs within families and which is not spoken about. "(The law) has been introduced to protect women against domestic violence which is undoubtedly a human rights issue and is a serious deterrence to development. The phenomenon of domestic violence appears to be widely prevalent, but as such remains invisible in the public domain. It can't be ignored that in several cases, women, who have been subjected to cruelty by the husband and/or his relatives, have chosen to digest such acts for the fear of ruining their marriage and suffering exposure to the public," said the judge, while dismissing Patil's petition.

Under the DV Act, a woman can file a complaint against any adult male, who she is in a domestic relationship with. It further says that when the complainant is a wife, then she can file against the relative of the husband or the male partner. Patil's lawyers relied on an HC order which appeared to say only male relatives could be charged. However, in Patil's case, the HC relied on a Supreme Court judgement which said female relatives can also be booked under the law.

Patil's wife Seema had approached the magistrate's court in 2014 under the DV Act against her husband and his relatives, alleging various instances of violence. The magistrate's court initiated proceedings, which was challenged by Patil in the HC.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...