SC struck down the words 'adult male' in the definition of 'respondent' in the Domestic Violence Act

The Bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman set aside the judgement of the Bombay High Court, which had read down the provisions of section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act and held that the provisions of “respondent” in section 2(q) of the Act is not to be read in isolation but has to be read as a part of the scheme of the 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  Act.
Holding that the word “adult male” is liable to be struck down, the Bench said that if the “respondent” is to be read as only an adult male person, it is clear that women who evict or exclude the aggrieved person are not within its coverage. And if that is so, the object of the Act can very easily be defeated.
The court further observed: “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.”
The court also said that the proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act, being rendered otiose, also stands deleted.