Husband is the villain

June 23, 2010


Women too might be responsible for domestic violence, but the central fact remains

In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court held that 'a woman can be prosecuted under the Domestic Violence Act as absence of such a provision can encourage men to instigate female members of a family to commit violence'. It is said to have further held that 'it is common knowledge that in case a wife is harassed by the husband, other family members may also join him in treating the wife cruelly and such family members would invariably include female relatives as well...If restricted interpretation is allowed, the very purpose for which this Act is enacted would be defeated. It would be very easy for the husband or other male members to frustrate the remedy by ensuring that the violence on the wife is perpetrated by female members'.


According to me, it is correct to say that remedies can be sought even against women if they are related to the husband or the male partner. I am not sure whether the men in a family will instigate women to perpetrate violence against other women to avoid being arrested, and if the Act does not allow women to be arrested, the men will take care to use other women in the family. I would say that the men do not even bother to think so much when they are cruel to the womenfolk inside their home. The violence is committed without sparing a thought that it is of any importance or that it could be a civil or criminal offence.

Coming back to the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (43 of 2005), the definition of Respondent, a person against whom you file a case, is very clear and, according to me, there is no ambiguity there.

Section 2(q) of the said Act defines Respondent as any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.

Now, there are two things here. One is: what is the objective of the Act and what is the meaning of the proviso or why has the proviso been added?

The main objective of the Act is to provide protection for women from domestic violence. Another important objective is that the State or the government takes the responsibility to ensure justice. The Respondent can be a woman if she is related to the husband or a male partner, or a female partner. Here the male partner is with reference to a live-in relationship and the wife or the female partner is the aggrieved person as defined in the Act.

In this context, I would say that this is keeping in view our Indian context where a bride or a woman who marries stays or resides with her husband in his home or in her in-laws' residence after marriage. The concept is that it is kanyadhan, dulhan ka vidayi, or giving away of the bride. The woman is therefore taken away from her natal or parents' home and placed in the custody of the in-laws or her husband. Invariably, dowry becomes a customary right of the husband and in-laws and not treated as an offence. Therefore, in the same context and social mindset, Section 498A was added in the Indian Penal Code, which describes the offence committed by the husband or the relative of the husband. Husband is always a man and needs no clarification on that, but relative of the husband could be of any gender. I find, when I visit prisons, many women imprisoned therein are alleged to have committed dowry harassment under section 498A of the IPC or offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. The concept of acceptance or sanction of violence, as it is perpetrated by the male partner or husband in an intimate relationship, is what makes the violence common and unavoidable. Many times, women, especially young ones, feel that the domestic violence could be committed by anyone irrespective of the gender and, therefore, the aggrieved person can be of either gender. They forget the objective of the Act.