Karnataka HC Withdraws Order Which Held That Husband Can Initiate DV Act Proceedings

Justice Anand Byrareddy of Karnataka HC withdrew his order on his retirement day.

Justice Anand Byrareddy of the Karnataka High Court has withdrawn his order wherein he held that a husband can initiate proceedings under the Domestic Act against wife and her relatives and has restored the petition on file.

Coincidentally, this withdrawal order by Justice Byrareddy came on his last day in office as high court judge. The judge turns 62 today (1 May 2017) and the order came on Friday, 28th April, 2017.

The order has been withdrawn by the Judge after Advocate Jayna Kothari has mentioned the matter before the Judge and argued that the order passed was in direct conflict with the provisions of the Act and the Supreme Court Judgment in Harsora Case.

The high court had recently observed that any person, whether male or female, aggrieved and alleging violation of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, can invoke the provisions under the Act.

Justice Byrareddy had apparently relied on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Hiral P Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, wherein the Supreme Court struck down a portion of Section 2(a) on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the phrase “adult male” as appearing in Section 2(q) stood deleted.

“If the said sub-section is read after deleting the expression ‘adult male’, it would appear that any person, whether male or female, aggrieved and alleging violation of the provisions of the Act could invoke the provisions under the Act. In that view of the matter, the petitioner’s complaint could not have been trashed on the ground that the Act does not contemplate provision for men and it could only be in respect of women,” the judge had observed.

Speaking to LiveLaw Advocate Jayna Kothari said;

“Harsora Judgment broadened the scope of the PWDVA to delete the phrase ‘adult male’ from the definition of the respondent. This was mistakenly applied to the definition of the ‘aggrieved person’ and the Karnataka high court held that men and women could see relief under the PWDVA. Not only was this under a mistaken understanding of the Harsora judgment, it would have led to a barrage of complaints being filed by men against women under the PWDVA which was enacted to protect women from domestic violence at the hands of men and not the other way around”.

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

*

  • basavarajappa says:

    I am an employ of KSRTC, officer. There are 4 STU’s. Namely, bmtc, KSRTC, nwkrtc & nekrtc. Earlier KSRTC was bifurcated into 4 independent transport corporation s during 1997,1999 & 2000 respectively. These are formed under RTC ACT 1950 section 3. Each corporation is independent shall operate with its jurisdictional area. Shall have its own or adopted C & D and C& R. Its employees services are guided by it. And not by any govt orders.
    Despite there are several court orders, stating that deputation without consent is impermissible under service law, the KSRTC is deputing its officers to different STU’s I.e., bmtc, nekrtc & nwkrtc. There are writ petitions pending for the last 2 years. Either the High court Bengalur bench is not helping.
    Can this grievance can be taken where and how.

  • Mamta says:

    I could like to know when husband treats the wife badly , hits , disrespect her in all manner . And husband preplan everything to leave without maintaing his wife and child . Transferring all his property earnings to his brother .. And he states that he is a employed to his brothers company with 15000 salary to prove in court he makes this kind of thing . Then how a wife and child gets her right . Moreover it is a sharehold house he enjoys everything and makes the plan not to take responsibility of the child and wife .

  • SANAJY B C says:

    It’s very good judgment with a good reasoning, when SC has deleted the adult male it gives clear meaning that male or female can file complaint. J.AB always delivered good judgment if this judgment would not be withdraw definitely it became one of the landmark judgment from Karnataka High Court.

Top