The Madras High Court made some interesting observations on the Domestic Violence Act and marriage after hearing charges that a woman had filed a domestic violence complaint against her husband just to “harass" him, the Bar and Bench reported.
Justice S Vaidyanathan said it was concerning that there is no law in place to deal with complaints against women in domestic relationships, similar to the Domestic Violence Act.
“It appears that, the 2nd Respondent (woman-complainant/ wife of the petitioner) is unnecessarily harassing the Petitioner. Unfortunately, there is no provision like the Domestic Violence Act, to proceed against the wife by the husband. Complaint has been given four days prior to grant of divorce by the Family Court, which itself clearly shows that the 2nd Respondent has anticipated divorce order and created unnecessary trouble to the Petitioner," the order passed on March 31 said.
The Court also remarked on the dwindling sanctity attached to the “sacrament" of marriage, especially after live-in relationships were approved under the Domestic Violence Act.
“The present generation must understand that, marriage is not a contract, but a sacramental one. Of course, the word ‘sacrament’ has no meaning after coming into effect of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, that, approves live-in-relationship. Husband and wife must realize that, ‘ego’ and ‘intolerance’ are like footwear and should be left out of their house, when they enter the home, else, the child/children will have to face a miserable life," the Court said, according to the report.
The High Court was hearing a case in which a man was seeking reinstatement to his employment after being fired due to a complaint filed by his wife in a domestic dispute.
The petitioner had previously filed a divorce petition alleging cruelty and voluntary desertion by his wife, which the Family Court had accepted. The wife was said to have filed a domestic abuse complaint against the petitioner just days before the judgement was handed down.
Though the wife was impleaded as a party to the case before the High Court, she failed to appear despite service of notice. In this backdrop, the Court opined that the wife may have acted only to harass the petitioner. Justice Vaidyanathan, therefore, ordered reinstatement of the petitioner to his job within 15 days.
Despite being named as a party in the lawsuit before the High Court, the wife failed to appear after being served with notice. In light of this, the Court concluded that the wife’s actions were likely motivated solely by a desire to harass the petitioner. As a result, Justice Vaidyanathan ordered the petitioner’s restoration to his position within 15 days.
Read all the Latest News, Breaking News and Coronavirus News here
