A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India (Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman) delivered a groundbreaking constitutional ruling under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The Apex Court held that restricting the definition of a “respondent” under Section 2(q) to an “adult male person” is unconstitutional as it violates Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality). Applying the doctrine of severability, the Court struck down the words “adult male” from Section 2(q), thereby enabling aggrieved women to file domestic violence complaints against female relatives (such as mothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, or daughters-in-law) regardless of whether an adult male member is co-named as a respondent.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Kurian Joseph & Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman (Opinion authored by Justice R.F. Nariman)
Date of Decision: October 6, 2016
Subject Area: Constitutional Law (Article 14) | Domestic Violence Law | Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(q), 2(s) & 19) | Severability of Unconstitutional Words | Gender-Neutrality of Respondents
Core Legal Principles Established by the Supreme Court
1. Unconstitutionality of “Adult Male” under Article 14
- The restriction of the term “respondent” in Section 2(q) of the DV Act to an “adult male person” carries no reasonable nexus with the main objective of the Act—which is to afford comprehensive statutory protection to women facing domestic violence.
- Domestic violence can be perpetrated by female relatives (e.g., mothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, or daughters-in-law) independently of an adult male. Denying protection to an aggrieved woman merely because her abuser is female creates an arbitrary classification violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Application of the Doctrine of Severability
- Relying on Corporation of Calcutta v. Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd. and Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India, the Court held that striking down only the specific words “adult male” leaves the remainder of Section 2(q) intact, operative, and functional.
- Post-severance, Section 2(q) reads: “‘respondent’ means any person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person…”, thus making the class of potential respondents gender-neutral.
3. Harmonious Construction of Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(q), and 2(s)
- The Court emphasized that definitions under Section 2 must be read together. An “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) and “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) cover any woman who lives or has lived in a shared household with relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption.
- Excluding female family members from the definition of “respondent” severely crippled the remedial powers of courts under Section 19 (Protection/Residence Orders), where eviction of an abuser from a shared household often requires directing female co-habituating relatives to cease interference.
Comparison: Section 2(q) Before and After Hiralal Harsora
| Metric / Aspect | Pre-Hiralal Harsora Position | Post-Hiralal Harsora Position |
| Statutory Text of Sec 2(q) | “respondent means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship…” | “respondent means any person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship…” |
| Maintainability Against Females | Maintainable only if co-accused alongside a primary “adult male member.” | Fully maintainable against any relative (male or female) independently. |
| Constitutional Compliance | Found discriminatory and violative of Article 14 (Equality before Law). | Restored to constitutional validity via judicial severability. |
Fact Pattern & Judicial Trajectory
- Complaint Filed (2007): Kusum Harsora and her mother Pushpa filed a domestic violence complaint against Kusum’s brother (Pradeep), his wife, and two sisters, alleging physical and economic harassment regarding shared property and family business revenues.
- Objection & Discharge: Counsel for the brother’s wife and sisters moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate seeking discharge on the ground that under Section 2(q), they were not “adult males” and could not be arrayed as respondents.
- High Court Order (2014): The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that while female relatives could be co-respondents alongside an adult male member, an independent complaint solely against female relatives was non-maintainable under Section 2(q).
- Supreme Court Disposition: Allowed the Appeal. The Apex Court set aside the High Court judgment, declared the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) unconstitutional, and ordered their deletion, allowing complaints under the DV Act to proceed directly against female relatives.
Key Quote from the Judgment
“The microscopic difference between male and female, adult and non-adult, on the side of the respondent is neither reasonable nor has any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the 2005 Act… The restriction of ‘respondent’ to mean only ‘adult male person’ is clearly microscopic and arbitrary, and is liable to be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.”
— Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman