Hiral P. Harsora and Ors. v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors.
Background
A mother and daughter filed complaints under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against their son/brother, his wife, and two sisters/daughters of the family, alleging domestic violence. Because Section 2(q) of the Act defined "respondent" in a way that could only cover an "adult male person" (with a limited proviso for female relatives of such a male), the female family members among the accused sought to be discharged on the ground that the law, as literally worded, did not apply to them. This raised a direct challenge to whether restricting the definition of "respondent" to adult males was constitutional.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the words "adult male" in Section 2(q) created an artificial and unreasonable classification that had no rational connection with the Act's object, protecting women from violence occurring within domestic/shared household relationships, since a woman can equally face violence or abuse at the hands of female relatives (such as a mother-in-law or sister-in-law) in a joint household. The Court held this restriction violated Article 14 of the Constitution and, applying the "severability" doctrine rather than impermissibly "reading up" the statute, struck down ("deleted") the words "adult male" from Section 2(q), along with the now-redundant proviso, so that the provision covers any "respondent" regardless of sex. On the specific complaints before it, since counsel for the respondents agreed not to pursue the particular 2010 complaints further and was content with the constitutional declaration, the appeal was disposed of on that basis.
Lesson Learnt
Domestic violence law protections cannot be limited only to complaints against adult male relatives: women facing abuse from female relatives within the same household (such as a mother-in-law or sister-in-law) are also covered under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, following this judgment's deletion of the "adult male" restriction as unconstitutional.