SC stuck down the word male-adult of Section 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act.

Today, Supreme Court in Hiral P Harsora and ors Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora & Ors. stuck down the word male-adult before the word “person” in Section 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act. Now the complaint can be filed against any person to which aggrieved has or had shared household, it let down the object sought to be achieved by the Domestic Violence Act.
“The provisions of “respondent” in section 2(q) of the DV Act is not to be read in isolation but has to be read as a part of the scheme of the DV Act, and particularly along with the definitions of “aggrieved person”, “domestic relationship” and “shared household” in clauses (a), (f) and (s) of section 2 of the DV Act” this was expressed by the beach headed by Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman while pronouncing the judgment. Court further laid down that if it include only male-adult then it damage the object of DV Act as other member of shared household who do this crime will not be punished under DV Act.
Court further stated that “It is not difficult to conceive of a non-adult 16 or 17 year old member of a household, who can aid or abet the commission of acts of domestic violence, or who can evict or help in evicting or excluding from a shared household an aggrieved person. Also, a residence order, which may be passed under Section 19(1)(c) can get stultified if a 16 or 17-year-old relative enters the portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides after a restraint order is passed against the respondent and any of his adult relatives.”