Case Summary: Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
Citation: (2016) 10 SC CK 0037; (2016) 10 SCC 165; AIR 2016 SC 4774
Date of Judgment: October 6, 2016
Bench: Kurian Joseph, J.; R.F. Nariman, J.
Court: Supreme Court of India (Division Bench)
[Judgment Source] https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=1035110
Law Points Raised
• Constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
• Whether a complaint under the DV Act can be filed only against adult male persons.
• Scope and interpretation of the term 'respondent' under Section 2(q).
Ratio Decidendi
• The expression “adult male person” in Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act was held unconstitutional as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
• The Court held that the classification based on gender and age does not bear a rational nexus with the object of the Act — protection of women from domestic violence.
Final Ruling
• The Supreme Court struck down the words “adult male” from Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
• This expanded the scope of the term 'respondent' to include women and non-adult males who may commit domestic violence.
Relevant Paragraph Numbers
• Paragraphs 2 to 8: Summary of facts and arguments
• Paragraphs 6 and 7: High Court interpretation and appeal arguments
• Final ruling spans entire judgment but reasoning is concentrated around Paragraphs 6 to 8.
Full Judgment Narrative
R.F. Nariman, J.—Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 25.9.2014 of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It raises an important question as to the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as "the 2005 Act").
3. On 3.4.2007, Kusum Narottam Harsora and her mother Pushpa Narottam Harsora filed a complaint under the 2005 Act against Pradeep, the brother/son, and his wife, and two sisters/daughters, alleging various acts of violence against them. The said complaint was withdrawn on 27.6.2007 with liberty to file a fresh complaint.
4. Nothing happened for over three years till the same duo of mother and daughter filed two separate complaints against the same respondents in October, 2010. An application was moved before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for a discharge of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 stating that as the complaint was made under Section 2(a) read with Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act, it can only be made against an adult male person and the three respondents not being adult male persons were, therefore, required to be discharged. The Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order dated 5.1.2012 in which such discharge was refused. In a writ petition filed against the said order, on 15.2.2012, the Bombay High Court, on a literal construction of the 2005 Act, discharged the aforesaid three respondents from the complaint. We have been informed that this order has since attained finality.
5. The present proceedings arise because mother and daughter have now filed a writ petition, being writ petition No.300/2013, in which the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) has been challenged. Though the writ petition was amended, there was no prayer seeking any interference with the order dated 15.2.2012, which, as has already been stated herein above, has attained finality.
6. The Bombay High Court by the impugned judgment dated 25.9.2014 has held that Section 2(q) needs to be read down in the following manner: