Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 976
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VENKATARAMAN
Dennision Paulraj & Others
Versus
The Union of India, rep. by Secretary & Others
Writ Petition No.28521 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Decided on : 03-04-2009
For the Petitioners:K. Moorthy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R5, L.S.M. Hasan Fizal, G.A., R6, M/s.Ram and Ram, Advocates.
Special protection for women under the Act is justified and in line with Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act - Challenge to Sections 12, 18, 19 and 23 - Summary of Acts and Sections
Fact of the Case:
The husband and his relatives filed a writ petition challenging certain provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging bias and discrimination in favor of the wife. The petitioners argued that the Act affected the rights of the husband and his relatives and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Act's provisions were not unconstitutional, ultra vires, or void. It held that the Act's special protection for women was justified and in line with Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India, which allows for special provisions for women and children.
Issues: The main grounds of the writ petition were the alleged discriminatory nature of the Act's provisions and the violation of the rights of the husband and his relatives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous judgments and constitutional provisions to establish that the special protection for women under the Act was justified and not in violation of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition challenging Sections 12, 18, 19 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, without any order as to costs.
Writ petition has filed filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Declaration declaring that Sections 12, 18, 19 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Central Act 43 of 2005) as unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.
By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition for a declaration declaring Sections 12, 18, 19 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Central Act 43 of 2005) as unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.
3. The short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the present writ petition, are set out here under:-
1. The first petitioner is the husband of the sixth respondent. Petitioners 2 and 3 are his parents. Petitioners 4 to 6 are his brother, sister in law and sister respectively. The first petitioner married the sixth respondent on 05.07.2004 at C.S.I. Trinity Church, Avadi. It is an arranged marriage. After the marriage, the sixth respondent demanded the first petitioner an extravagant and ultra modern life style and made all the other family members as servants for her simple needs and started picking up quarrels with everyone in the family for no reasons. Hence, the first petitioner had to prefer a petition under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act for judicial separation on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, in O.P.No.887 of 2005 and the same is at the stage of enquiry.
2. Since the sixth respondent was continuously threatening the petitioners that she is going to prefer a criminal complaint against them, the petitioners approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.No.6823 of 2005 seeking anticipatory bail and the same was dismissed as there was no case. After coming to know of the orders, the sixth respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners before the fifth respondent under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, which compelled the petitioners to approach this Court by filing Crl.O.P.No.10554 of 2005 seeking anticipatory bail and the same was granted by this Court.
3. The sixth respondent having failed in her malicious attempt, with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners, filed an application under Sections 18, 19 and 23(2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the Act) setting out false and frivolous particulars. The said private complaint filed by the sixth respondent in C.M.P.No.1772 of 2007 in unnumbered M.C.No. / 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, has been referred to the fourth respondent for conducting enquiry. The petitioners attended the enquiry before the fourth respondent and submitted the malicious intention of the sixth respondent.
3.4 Aggrieved against the calculative and ulterior motivated action of the sixth respondent, the petitioners were constrained to approach this Court to quash the proceedings of the private complaint given by the sixth respondent referred to above in Crl.O.P.No.1772 of 2007 and the same was dismissed on 02.04.2008.
5. The proceedings initiated under the said Act is a complete abuse of process of law, especially when it was initiated after the first petitioner filed a petition seeking judicial separation before the Family Court. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging certain provisions of the said Act.
4. The main grounds on which the present writ petition has been filed are--
(i) Sections 4, 12, 18, 29 and 23 of the said Act are discriminatory and biased in favour of the wife and affect the right of life and liberty of the husband and his relatives.
(ii) The said Act does not permit the husband to file a complaint under the Act and hence, it is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) The proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee in Crl
