The Delhi High Court has indicated a preliminary view that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not extend protection to a husband or male family member, as indicated by Section 2(a) of the statute. Section 2(a) defines an “aggrieved person” as a woman who has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges domestic violence.
In a recent hearing, Justice Jasmeet Singh considered a petition filed by a wife against the proceedings initiated by her husband under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The wife argued that the statute’s provisions, as outlined in Section 2(a), limit the definition of an “aggrieved person” to a “woman” and therefore a complaint filed by a husband is not legally valid.
The court noted that based on Section 2(a) of the Act, it appears that the protection afforded by the Act does not extend to male family members, particularly the husband. In light of this, the court issued a notice in response to the petition and temporarily suspended the proceedings in the complaint case filed against the husband by a Metropolitan Magistrate of Karkardooma courts until the next hearing on February 14th. The petition, submitted by Advocate Ashima Mandla, argues that under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, only female individuals can be considered as the aggrieved party, while the accused or perpetrator can be either male or female.
The petition states that the definition of “aggrieved” under Section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has not been altered by the legislature and has not been broadened by judicial interpretation to include male individuals as aggrieved parties under the act. The petition cites the Supreme Court judgment in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora as support, pointing out that the ruling broadened the scope of Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, which defines a “respondent” or perpetrator, to be gender-neutral instead of limited to only male individuals.
The petition notes, however, that the Supreme Court did not change the definition of “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a), which remains limited to only women for the purposes of seeking remedies under the Act.
“….the Ld. Trial Court admitting proceedings qua the Petitioner-wife under the Protection of Women of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shall tantamount to judicial overreach,” the plea reads.
Title: NT v. VT
