Mohammed Zakir v. Parveez & Others(Karnataka High Court)
Order:- 18.05.2017
The petitioner, Mohammed Zakir, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash an order from a lower appellate court. The core of his grievance was that he, a male, had invoked the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) against his wife and her family. The lower courts had dismissed his complaint, operating on the interpretation that the DV Act was exclusively designed for the benefit of women and could not be used by a male aggrieved person.
The Legal Hurdle and the Supreme Court Precedent
The initial dismissal by the lower court was based on the original text of the DV Act, which defined a “respondent” in Section 2(q) as any adult male person. This created a legal barrier for male victims seeking protection under the act. However, the High Court identified that this issue was no longer valid precedent due to a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court of India in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora (2016). In that case, the Supreme Court struck down the phrase “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the DV Act, declaring it unconstitutional as it violated the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The High Court’s Reasoning and Order
The High Court applied the Supreme Court’s ruling directly to the petitioner’s case. It reasoned that with the deletion of the words “adult male,” the DV Act now allows any person, irrespective of gender, who is aggrieved by domestic violence to invoke its provisions. Therefore, the lower court’s order dismissing the petitioner’s complaint solely because he was a man was legally unsustainable. The High Court clarified that since the Magistrate had not yet taken cognizance of the case or issued process to the respondents, the question of hearing them at this stage did not arise. The matter was to be sent back to the Magistrate for a fresh consideration on its merits from the very beginning.
Conclusion and Outcome
Concluding that the legal question was settled in the petitioner’s favor by the Supreme Court, the High Court allowed the criminal petition. The impugned order was set aside, and the case was effectively reinstated, granting the petitioner the opportunity to have his complaint under the DV Act heard and evaluated by the Magistrate on its factual merits, free from the previous gender-based prohibition.
About the Author: Neeraj Gogia, Advocate, 9891800100, specializing in family law cases, alimony, maintenance matters and custody cases etc. This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
© 2025 [Familylawdelhi.in]. All rights reserved.