IMPORTANT POINT
Any person, whether male or female, aggrieved and alleging violation of the provisions of the Act could invoke the provisions under the Act.

ORDER

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is a Muslim male. He is aggrieved by certain acts of his wife and her family and therefore had invoked the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘DV Act’, for brevity). The court below was not impressed with the same as the Act clearly is loaded in favour of women only and it does not contemplate any male person being aggrieved by domestic violence. In this connection, it is to be noticed that the said issue was subject matter of an appeal before the Apex Court in the case of Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165, wherein the Supreme Court has struck down a portion of Section 2(a) on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India 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.

2. In that view of the matter, since cognizance was never taken by the Magistrate and process was not issued, the question of giving them a right of hearing either by the Sessions Court or by this Court does not arise. It is for the Magistrate to reconsider the case from inception. On the question whether the provision’s of the DV Act can be invoked by the petitioner or not is no longer res integra. The petition would therefore have to be entertained.

With that observation, the petition is allowed.

Revision allowed.