Whether the expression “relative”, has been specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only ?

Supreme Court: In a special leave petition presented to the apex court against a judgement of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, the court adjudicated the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Earlier the Bombay High Court has explained the above mentioned section of the said act as "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."

Shri Harin P. Raval, the senior advocate who appeared for the appellants argued that according to the definition of “respondent” in Section 2(q) of the said Act can only mean an adult male person. However Ms. Meenakshi Arora, the senior advocate appearing before the court on behalf of the respondents countered the appellants submissions and stated that if at all the act restricts the reach of the act for the social benefit to protect women from domestic violence of all kinds it must either be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or read down.

There was a complaint filed by a mother and a daughter against the brother/son, and his wife, and two sisters/daughters, alleging various acts of violence against them. Later the complaint was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh complaint. Later the mother and daughter filed two separate complaints against them. The accused persons filed before the Magistrate 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 however this application was refused. Later the discharge was granted by the Honorable Bombay High Court. Thereafter the complainants filed before the Supreme Court and challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The court after ascertaining the object sought to be achieving by the act and also referring to the earlier judgement by the Court in similar matters stated "A cursory reading of the statement of objects and reasons makes it clear that the phenomenon of domestic violence against women is widely prevalent and needs redressal. Whereas criminal law does offer some redressal, civil law does not address this phenomenon in its entirety. The idea therefore is to provide various innovative remedies in favour of women who suffer from domestic violence, against the perpetrators of such violence."

The court further noticed that the definition of “domestic relationship” contained in Section 2(f) is a very wide one. Finally the court in its judgement struck down the word "adult male" before the word "person" in section 2(q) of the act and after giving reference of the previous judgement stated "the rest of the Act is left intact and can be enforced to achieve the object of the legislation without the offending words."

Read the full judgement here.

Whether a complaint can be filed by a Trust under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?

In an appeal before the Supreme Court today, a question was raised whether a Trust can file a complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Earlier on this question The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission constituted under the same act denied accepting the fact that a Trust can file a complaint being a consumer. Later it came before the Apex Court and the Supreme Court too answered it negatively confirming that a Trust has no title to file a complaint under the said provisions.

The act empowers a complainant to complain for an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice adopted by any trader or service provider; a complaint in respect of goods (bought by a complainant) suffering from one or more defects; a complaint of deficiency in services hired or availed of by a complainant and so on. The court also defined a complainant referring to the section of the act which defines the complainant as "complainant" means − (i) a consumer; or (ii) any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act,1956 (1 of 1956) or under any other law for the time being in force; or (iii) the Central Government or any State Government; or (iv) one or more consumers, where there are numerous consumers having the same interest; (v) in case of death of a consumer, his legal heir or representative ; who or which makes a complaint.

The court confirmed that according the above mentioned definition of a complainant a Trust is not included and hence cannot be a complainant.  The court further explained and answered to the question whether a Trust can be a 'Consumer". To which the court referred to the provisions of the act which defines a consumer as "consumer" means any person who, − (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person; but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose.

The Supreme Court said "A reading of the definition of the words ‘complaint’, ‘complainant’ and ‘consumer’ makes it clear that a Trust cannot invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis of which a complaint could be made.

It further said that a Trust is also not a person as per the definition of a person defined in the act and hence it is clear that "a Trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Act".

Read the judgement here.