Will new Act make a difference to women?
TAJENDER LUTHRA
|
Going by the first case decided under it, the law on domestic violence seems faster and more effective
|
THE FIRST case decided under the recently enacted Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 has thrown open a lot of issues for debate. In Delhi, on an average, 137 cases of 304-B IPC (deaths due to dowry) and 1,728 cases of 406 IPC & 498-A IPC (demand of dowry and violence for dowry) are registered in a year.
Since the definition of domestic violence in the new Act is much wider than that provided in the IPC, the number of complaints under the new definition can be expected to be far more than the complaints under the IPC as given above.
It took 57 days for the first case to be decided by the court, as the new law came into force on October 26, 2006. At least for the time being, the new law seems faster and more effective in giving relief to women victims.
In the instant case, the complainant, Neeraj Bala, demanded stopping of violence, custody of child, shelter in husband's house, monthly maintenance and stopping husband from selling his property.
All these reliefs could be demanded under the existing laws too. But I think because our administrative and judicial delivery system, particularly our civil remedies, had failed to give women justice, this new law was conceived.
In a majority of divorce and separation cases, our civil remedies could not give any monthly maintenance to the women, leave alone stopping husband from selling his property till the marital dispute is decided. Even where such maintenance was given, it was too little and too late. This is an area where the new law can make a difference, if used effectively.
The court was forthcoming in granting the temporary custody of the child below five years to Neeraj Bala till the disposal of the petition filed separately under Hindu Marriage Act for custody of children. The court utilised section 21 of the new Act, which overrides all other laws and enables the court to grant temporary custody of the child to the mother. In this sense, section 21 is a very important tool in the hands of the court to deliver speedy justice to the victim.
However, the court declined to grant monthly maintenance under the new law saying that such prayer is already pending before a separate court under the Hindu Marriage Act 1956. But, section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence overrides all other existing laws and can be used to grant monthly maintenance to the separated wife.
We must realise that though granting custody of the child to the separated wife might give her emotional security bringing it up entails financial burden. Therefore, granting custody of the child has little meaning unless it is coupled with the granting of monthly financial maintenance.
Regarding stopping the husband from selling his property, the court did not give any relief to the complainant saying that relevant documents had not been placed on record to prove that the property was owned by the husband. But the court did not explain what kinds of records were required to prove it.
It will be very difficult for wives to collect such ownership documents, whereas the court has the powers to call such records to decide the issue on merit. I hope future verdicts will guide complainants about the kind of documents to be placed before the court.
The court was forthcoming, in ordering under section 18 that husband and in-laws be restrained from repeating any act of domestic violence. The court wished to ensure this by prohibiting husband and in-laws from any form of communication with the wife. Will such an order end a wife's ordeal from domestic violence? And who will monitor and implement this order, women protection officers or the local police?
Neeraj Bala also demanded shelter in husband's house which was not granted on the plea that she had been living separately for one and a half years. A majority of women victims do not approach the court before they are actually thrown out of husband's house. In our social milieu, approaching the court is generally the last step a wife takes to save her marriage or to live separately with due dignity.
Since, section 17 of the new Act empowers court to allow a victim woman not only to reside in the same house but also to allot her a part of that house for her personal use, the view taken by the court will deprive many victims from securing shelter in the husband's house.
(The writer is Additional Commissioner of Police, Crimes against Women, Delhi)
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Open Page
