Can a case of violence under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, be filed against female relatives of an adult male person?

Falgu Mukati | Pravin Gandhi College of Law | 23rd February 2020 

Hiral P. Harsora and Ors vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors, Civil Appeal NO.  10084 of 2016

Matter

Kusum and her mother Pushpa Harsora filed a complaint under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against Pradeep, the brother/son, and his wife, and two sisters/daughters, alleging various acts of violence against them. When no action was taken for over three years then the mother and daughter filed two separate complaints against the respondent. However, since the Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, contains the expression of an ‘adult male person’, the complaints against the other respondents were dismissed. The three respondents who by law did not fall under the expression of Section 2(q) of the Act were discharged. Thus, in this case the mother and daughter have filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the      Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Appellant’s Contention

• It alleged that as per Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, a complaint of domestic violence can be lodged only against an, ‘adult male person.’
• It stated that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a penal statute and should be strictly construed in the event of any ambiguity. He further added that the expression of ‘adult male person’ cannot be diluted in any manner, as it was done by the High Court.   
• It submitted that reading down cannot be equated to re-reading in constitutional law.
• No provision can be inserted or added into the main provision in order to distort the language.
• Only the parliament has the right to make changes to any of the provisions of a specific Act or the Act itself. Thus, the High Court has distorted the language and exercised power which it did not possess.

Respondent’s Contention

• It alleged that the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was enacted to protect women from all kinds of violence. Thus, any definition which seeks to restrict the reach of the Act would have to be either struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or read down.
• It stated that the expression of ‘adult male person’, is not based on any intelligible differentia, and in order to protect women the term can be widened by the court.
• It submitted that the expression is contrary to the object of the act. The purpose of the Act is to protect women from violence faced and thereby provide her with justice.
• The High Court was right, and that if the said expression is not struck down, it ought to be read down in the manner suggested to make it constitutional.
• It stated that as per Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the expression of ‘shared household’, may also include members of joint family.
• The amendments made to the Hindu Succession Act, have made females coparceners to the joint Hindu family. Thus, if amendments are made to provide women their rights then the same should be done in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the expression ‘adult male person’ should be broadened.

Issues Raised

• The main issue in this case is that whether a case of violence under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, can be filed against female relatives of the adult male person.

Held

• It set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declared 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. 
• The two complaints of 2010, in which the three female respondents were discharged finally, were purported to be revived, despite there being no prayer in Writ Petition No.300/2013 for the same.