Scope of the Domestic violence act is to benefit and protect the rights of women: High Court of Allahabad
The ‘The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was enacted to provide for a more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Matters which deal with narrow interpretation of the act that would leave the women in distress must not be adopted since it would defeat the purpose of the act. This was decreed by the Hon’ble Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava in the case of Nivesh Gupta @ Ankur Gupta and 2 others vs. The State of U.P. and Anr. [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. ­ 6947 of 2021] on the 06th of July 2021 before the Hon’ble High court at Allahabad. The brief facts of the case are, the present application seeks to challenge the order dated 7.11.2020, by means of which, the complaint registered filed by the opposite party no. 2, has been directed to be registered fixing a date and the subsequent orders, in terms of which, further dates have been fixed in the case. The applicants have also sought quashing of the proceedings of the complaint case. The only ground, which is sought to be canvassed to challenge the order registering the case and also seeking quashing of the proceedings, is that the applicants are not living with the opposite party no. 2 in a ‘shared household’ and, therefore, the proceedings under ‘The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005’, would not be maintainable. The counsel for the state submits that, the contention, which is sought to be raised by the applicants with regard to the parties not living together in a shared household, would require adjudication by the competent court and the applicants can raise their defence in the proceedings before the court below. It was also submitted that, in the facts of the present case, the complaint filed by the opposite party no. 2 has merely been registered, and the present application seeking quashing of the proceedings, is clearly premature and is not liable to be entertained at this stage. The learned judge heard both the parties and observed that, the intent behind enacting the domestic violence act was to ensure protection for women from domestic violence. The provisions under the DV Act seek to cover those women, who are or have been in a relationship with the abuser, where both parties have lived together in a ‘shared household’ or related by consanguinity or marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption. The court observed that looking to the beneficial nature of the provisions contained under the DV Act, its interpretation should be in a manner to effectuate its objects and purpose. It relied on the judgement in the case of, Vaishali Abhimanyu Joshi vs. Nanasaheb Gopal Joshi (2017) 14 SCC 373 wherein, “Section 26 of the 2005 Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act. Unless the determination of claim by an aggrieved person seeking any order as contemplated by the 2005 Act is expressly barred from consideration by a civil court, this Court shall be loath to read in bar in consideration of any such claim in any legal proceeding before the civil court.”
Hon ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava J The present application seeks to challenge the order dated 7.11.2020 by means of which the complaint registered directed to be registered fixing a date and the subsequent orders in terms of which further dates have been fixed in the case. The applicants have also sought quashing of the The only ground which is sought to be canvassed to challenge the order registering the case and also seeking quashing of the proceedings is that the applicants are not living with the opposite party no. 2 in a shared household and therefore the proceedings under The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 would not be Learned A.G.A. appearing for the State­opposite party a shared household would require adjudication by the the proceedings before the court below. Learned A.G.A further submits that in the facts of the present case the proceedings is clearly premature and is not liable to be the present case relate to The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 20051 which was enacted to provide for a more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for contains reference to the Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action wherein domestic violence was acknowledged as a human of Discrimination Against Women also The provisions under the DV Act seek to cover those women who are or have been in a relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived together in a shared a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption Relationship with family members living together as a joint family are also included. In addition women who are sisters widows mothers single women or living with the abuser are The expression domestic violence under the Act has been defined in a manner so as to include actual abuse or threat or abuse that is physical sexual verbal emotional or economic. Harassment by way of unlawful dowry demands have also been covered under the definition. In order to effectively ensure the protection of women the DV Act residence orders custody orders compensation orders and The DV Act was enacted keeping in view the rights the women from being victims of domestic violence and to was considered in Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi nature of the legislation the courts are expected to have a sensitive approach and before throwing a petition at the apposite discussion and thorough deliberation on the issues “3. Regard being had to the nature of the legislation a more sensitive approach is expected from the courts whereunder the 2005 Act no relief can be granted it should never be conceived of but before throwing a petition at the threshold on the ground of maintainability there has to be an apposite discussion be borne in mind that helpless and hapless “aggrieved to scrutinise the facts from all angles whether a plea legislation is not faced with a situation of non­ adjudication for the 2005 Act as we have stated is a Nanasaheb Gopal Joshi3 it was held that looking to the beneficial nature of the provisions contained under the DV Act is expressly barred from consideration by a civil court this Court shall be loath to read in bar in to claim protection of right in a shared household would be expression as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act which of the right to live in a shared household the words lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship would have a claim for protection of right in a shared household can be sustained would have to be therefore based upon a 13. The DV Act has been held to be a beneficial and an affirmative legislation for more effective protection of become victims of any kind of domestic violence and while interpreting the provisions of the Act a sensitive approach grievance of the aggrieved person. The beneficial and the 15. Having regard to the aforesaid and looking to the at the threshold and the question of maintainability would require a proper appreciation of facts of the case and a Learned counsel for the applicants at this stage fairly submits that the applicants would appear before the court are prima facie in nature and the dismissal of the present objections which may be available to them including the Subject to the aforesaid observations the application