Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, mother and sister of the alleged perpetrator, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). They had earlier filed a complaint under the DV Act against the husband, his wife, and his sisters, alleging physical, verbal, emotional, and economic abuse. The complaint was later withdrawn on the ground that material facts were not properly stated. The petitioners then challenged the definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q), which defines 'respondent' as any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. They argued that this definition is discriminatory against men and violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of the Act, which is to protect women from domestic violence. The court noted that the Act is a beneficial legislation and the definition is not ultra vires the Constitution. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Validity of Legislation - Section 2(q) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Challenge to definition of 'respondent' as including only adult male persons - Petitioners, mother and sister of alleged perpetrator, argued that the definition is discriminatory and violates Articles 14, 15, and 21 - Court held that the classification is based on intelligible differentia and has rational nexus with the object of the Act, which is to protect women from domestic violence - The Act is a beneficial legislation and the definition is not ultra vires the Constitution (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which defines 'respondent' to include any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, is unconstitutional for being discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court upholds the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity
- Definition of respondent
- Domestic Violence Act
- 2005
- Section 2(q)
- Article 14
- Article 15
- Article 21
- Ultra vires
- Gender neutrality
- Shared household
- Domestic relationship
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (09) 113
Writ Petition No. 300 of 2013
Mohit S. Shah, C.J., M.S. Sonak, J.
Ms. Kusum N. Harsora (petitioner in person), Mr. Dhiren H. Shah (for respondent no.1), Mr. Naren Thakore with Mr. Ritesh Jain i/b Purnanand & Co. (for respondent nos.3 to 5)
Kusum Narottam Harsora and Pushpa Narottam Harsora
Union of India, State of Maharashtra, Mrs. H. P. Harsora, Ms. A. N. Harsora, Mrs. C. B. Das
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that Section 2(q) of the DV Act is unconstitutional and ultra vires Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, mother and sister of the alleged perpetrator, challenged the definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) as discriminatory against men.
Previous Decisions
The petitioners had earlier filed a complaint under the DV Act which was withdrawn.
Issues
Whether Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is unconstitutional for being violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Section 2(q) defines 'respondent' only as an adult male person, which is discriminatory and violates Articles 14, 15, and 21.
Respondents argued that the classification is based on intelligible differentia and has rational nexus with the object of the Act, which is to protect women from domestic violence.
Ratio Decidendi
The classification in Section 2(q) of the DV Act, which defines 'respondent' as any adult male person, is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object of the Act, which is to protect women from domestic violence. The Act is a beneficial legislation and the definition is not ultra vires Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners – sister and mother of P.N.H. (respondent no.1 in complaint before the Magistrate's Court) have challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a complaint under the DV Act on 3 April 2007, which was later withdrawn. They then filed the present writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the DV Act.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 2(q), 3, 20, 22
- Constitution of India: 14, 15, 21, 226
