Upholding the right of women to invoke the provisions of new anti-domestic violence law against any form of aggression to secure their “protection” within four walls of the house, the Supreme Court in an important verdict has ruled that the law would cover even the cases filed before it was actually passed by Parliament in 2005.
The top court gave the ruling in a petition by ex-service man V.D. Bhanot challenging the Delhi high court’s ruling making the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act to a case filed by his wife Savita Bhanot in July 4, 2005, a date before the act was passed by Parliament. He further had contended that the act in fact came into force only on October 26, 2006, hence not applicable to his case.
But a bench of Justices Altamas Kabir and J. Chelameswar rejected Bahanot’s plea and upheld the HC order while directing the husband to provide his 67-year-old wife a suitable portion of his residence in Mathura with all necessary amenities for his her “dignified” stay for the rest of her life and a deadline of February 29 was set for him to implement the order.
The top court said if the wife was “reluctant” to live in the same premises where her husband is living, then he would pay her `4,000 per month for taking on rent alternate accommodation in the town. The amount would be in addition to monthly maintenance of `6,000 fixed by the trial court.
On the applicability of the act to cases registered prior to the act was passed, the apex court reproduced the high court’s order, which said “it was with the view of protecting the rights of women under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, Parliament enacted the act in 2005, to provide effective protection to women, who are victims of any kind of violence occurring within the family and matters connected and incidental thereto, and also to provide efficient and expeditious civil remedy to them.”
“A petition under the provisions of the 2005 Act (by Savita Bhanot) is maintainable even if the acts of domestic violence had been committed prior to the coming into force of the said Act, notwithstanding the fact that in the past she had lived with her husband in a shared household, but was no more living with him, at the time when the act came into force,” the SC recorded. These articles deal with rights of equality before law.