Domestic Violence Act~~~~The river now takes the reverse course

In 2005-06 when the ‘Indian’ Domestic Violence Act came (notified on 17.10.2006), it created a very expected household furore. It was like a Diwali gift for the ones ‘actually’ oppressed, while even more of a bonanza for the ones who have always been successful in making the law work their way.
Some people accused the legislation for being gender biased, but what be expected out of it when it is called as ‘The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The real difficulty however, was that neither there was nor is there any similar enactment for the (He) men of our society. May be they know how to protect themselves well!!
The Act introduced a radical stream of rights, especially by giving a statutory recognition to rights of female live-in partners. They, like other women, have rights such as getting monetary reliefs/ compensation and the minimum right of ‘residing’ (not ownership) in the shared household of their male partner/ husband, etc.
The enactment suffers severely from mal-drafting and the least care taken in proof reading. While the ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons’ shouts about the intention of the legislature, the drafted sections are completely vague, with wide and confusing definitions, each linked to one another in a vicious circle.
As a result, there are stories, incidents about misuse of this statute, just as there are and were about Section 498A of the IPC. Those can be dealt at the stages of evidence and careful scrutiny at the time of judgment making.
However, what is disheartening is that even the most basic definitions of “aggrieved person” and “respondent” are left vague and at the mercy of different rules of interpretation.
Recently there have been controversies about who can be a ‘respondent’, more specifically, as to whether a ‘female’ can be made a ‘respondent’ in any proceeding under the Act. Then followed judgments, one after the other, from various High Courts, showing little hints of any comity between them.
Two judgments, one each from M.P. and Madras High Court [2008 (2) Crimes 235 (M.P.) and (2008) 3 MLJ 756 (Mad) respectively] share the view that a female cannot be a ‘respondent’ under the Act even if she happens to be an oppressor and is the male partner’s mother, sister or other female relative!!
Judgments from Rajasthan High Court [2008 (1) WLN 359 and RLW 2008 (4) Raj 3432] showed some mercy by reading the Act and definition of ‘respondent’ fully (by also reading the proviso which was always there) and held that the term ‘relative of the husband or the male partner’ CANNOT not include the female relatives since they have not been excluded. Ironically, in yet another upsetting judgment of the same High Court [2009 (2) WLN 160], a contrary view has come giving a blanket protection to even oppressor females under the Act. Meaning thereby that a female cannot be protected in a household from the atrocities of the relative of her male partner/ husband only because the oppressor is a female relative!
Relief again was given by the judgment from the A.P. High Court Division Bench (decided on 02.06.2009) opines that any relative of male partner/ husband (including a female) can be ‘respondent’, which gains support from clause 4(i) of the Objects and Reasons.
This pseudo law making and breaking may continue till a ‘final’ word comes from the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject.
The story however, takes an interesting U-turn since coming in of recent reports, news and cases filed by female relatives (e.g. mother-in-law) of the male partner/ husband against his female partner/ wife under her very own ‘Domestic Violence Act’ alleging acts of violence/ cruelty. Howsoever true the story may be, it CANNOT be allowed under the said Act. Such cases are a result of the very weakly drafted definitions of ‘aggrieved person’ and ‘respondent’ under the Act. If definitions are read carefully, such cases may actually be seem to be covered, however, if the true intent of the legislature is seen as spelt out in the Objects and Reasons, it will look like the river is actually taking a reverse course. Not only are such cases/ complaints/ applications being filed under the Act, but some Magistrates have also passed orders against the female partners.
Appeals and revisions will follow and few injustices done may be reversed but what is truly called for is a corrective/ explanation in the body of the Act itself.
We can only write for a cause, is someone listening???