The Authors are Amisha Priyadarshini Dash, 2nd year BA.LLB student of Christ University, Delhi NCR and Adish Jain, 1st year BBA LLB Student of Symbiosis Law School, Noida.
As Christine Mason Miller once said, “At any given moment you have the power to say this is not how the story is going to end.”
In the Recent judgment by the Hon’ble Justice Srinivas Harish Kumar, Karnataka High Court, dated June 17 June, (Criminal Petition 2148/2021), wherein, issue before the bench was, whether the extra-marital partner, the women could be bought under the ambit of Section 12 (application against Respondent) of the Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. And the Hon’ble Court Recognized that, and pronounced that the Petitioner could not move under the same section against the extramarital women, and the rationale given on the basis was the Literal Interpretation of the Law, and thereby she is not entitled to come under the definition of Respondent under Section 2(q) of the same act, and Subsequently, could not be made party to the Petition.
2(q)“respondent” means 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 this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.
Herein the Court has elected for the Literal Rule of Interpretation, which in simple words mean:
•Words of an enactment are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning
•If language of statute is plain, the only duty of the court is to give effect to it.
•It has been called the safest rule as the legislature's intention can be deduced only from language through which it has expressed itself.
•Only verbal expression of law is taken into consideration and the courts do not go beyond what is expressed by words.
The definition and implementation of this Rule of Law seems tranquil but its reverberation is even more pessimistic.
•It fails to recognize that English language itself is ambiguous and that words may have different meanings in different contexts.
•It can sometimes lead to absurdities and loopholes which can be exploited by unmeritorious litigants.
•It ignores limitations of language.
•Judges have tended to over-emphasize the literal meaning of statutory provision without giving due weight to their meaning in a wider context.
This Judgment impliedly signifies that the Judges are also obligated to Law itself and therefore could not help beyond the words of Law.
Therefore, the Legislature should take the command over such instances and use them as the opportunity to reform such sections, overcome the hurdle of impartiality and raise the efficacy of the same.
The legislative intent was further emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K.V Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755 wherein it was stated that “the Domestic Violence Act,2005 is enacted to provide a remedy in civil law for the protection of women, from being victims of such relationships, and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society.” But, apparently, this intent of the Legislature is limited to such sections, which impact the efficacy of the Act, holistically.
Adding to it, the Bombay High Court in the case of Ishpal Singh Kahai v. Ramanjeet Kahai, 2011 SCC Online Bom 412, reiterated that “the conscience of the Law-maker is to provide statutory protection to victims of violence in the domestic sector.”
However, it is ad rem to note here that, the verdict by Karnataka HC is with the clear intention, to protect the extra marital partner from getting exploited based on a false narrative by the petitioner, which is usually the case.
But, as per Newton’s Third Law- for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Which can ideally be implied here, as giving more autonomy to the extra marital partner by not showing its presence in the definition, creates a risk for the actual victim (women).
As Section 2(f) in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;
The extra marital partner is nevertheless not present in the ambit of the definition, which makes it a “Question of Law” itself, the definition is crystal clear with no presence of the extra marital partner, which makes it impossible to cover under “Domestic Relationship”.
Therefore, the victim will time and again get exploited and suffer at the hands of the system, because it is merely “Play of Words” that makes the petitioner paralyzed & vulnerable.
Also, another black spot which is to be covered under the same contention is, the question before the society is why there could be no amendment in the nature of equality and justice talked about in the Golden triangle of law. To rephrase, contention arises is the definition of respondent itself, which is inclined towards the female suffering through Domestic violence. Such catastrophic biasness of Patriarchal society could be uncovered when there are some upper-class sections of the society where male may become the part of the same. Female playing the Victim Card could not suffice the need to stop violence, domestically.
Adding to the list, there must be subsequent development in the laws, protecting the interest of the innocent women.
- As it is very obvious that, extra-marital women do not fall under the ambit of Domestic Relationship under 2(f) of the act, as she (extra-marital women) is nowhere directly linked with the household relations. But this, hampers the integrity of the innocent wife, in the case wherein, as she could not make extra-marital women the party to the case, thereby, resulting in injustice. There should be an Amendment provided that extra-marital women could be made party to the case, although she should not suffer unnecessary or the same should be at the discretion of the Court, if it sees prima facie, then only extra-marital women should make the party to the same.
Conclusively, all of this creates Immediate vacuum for the Amendment, in the Prominent Provision for the Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, mere ignorance could not prevent the distortion of value of The Principle of Nature Justice.
With the current scenario it will be worth saying “The moment that Justice must be paid for by the victim of injustice it becomes itself injustice”
