Anniversary of the Abomination called PWDVA (Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act 2005)

October 26, 2007 marked the first anniversary of the passage of the legislative abomination called PWDVA 2005 (Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act). On that day, a posse of dedicated volunteers from the rapidly growing Save Indian Family Foundation staged a protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, opposing the draconian provisions of this malicious piece of legislation.

Before the radical feminist propaganda machine rolls into high gear branding Save Indian Family as a misogynist, patriarchal, male chauvinist organization promoting violence against women, let me make it clear to all the readers – Save Indian Family foundation opposes all forms of domestic violence. SIFF is not opposed to legislation to protect a spouse from intimate partner violence. What SIFF is opposed to is the extremist legislation whose goals are more of fulfillment of radical feminist agendas rather than the true protection of vulnerable women. In the following paragraphs, I will illustrate how this legislative abomination called PWDVA, is more about establishing a radical feminist hegemony in Indian civil society than about protecting women from violence.

The period preceding the passing of this extremist legislation was characterized by the careful orchestration of a large scale propaganda, both in national and international media about the prevalence of domestic violence against women in India. The UN was co-opted to provide the cover of legitimacy to the radical feminists’ fictitious accounts. Some of the headlines read – “75% of Indian women subjected to Domestic Violence – UN Study”, implying a whopping 75% of the men in India are perpetrators of Domestic Violence. Many international media carried this headline, and not one sensible elder either from political parties or from the ranks of the government had the courage to condemn this fallacious propaganda or at the least challenge this study. The task eventually fell upon the volunteers of SIFF, who in coordination with other international men’s groups worked to set the record straight. The result was a retraction by the Washington Times.

Over the last one year, there were several criticisms heard from both the proponents and opponents of this draconian piece of legislation. Proponents claim the implementation is lax, not enough awareness exists about the provisions of the legislation and that the police and judiciary are not sensitized. On the other hand, the opponents claim that the law was badly drafted and it is difficult to implement it. Also, they claim there is ample scope for misuse of the provisions. One such erudite article was written by Sri R.K.Gauba and you can find the link here.

One rarely hears about any analysis of the sheer magnitude of male hating malice and callousness packed into this piece of legislation.  PWDVA was drafted intentionally to cause maximum amount of disruption and chaos in the society. The language in the act was intentionally left ambiguous, so the doors are left open for extortion and blackmail. I will elaborate on this further down. The passage of this legislation in our parliament is a reflection of the complete control the non-governmental radical feminist groups like lawyers collective, Council for Social Research have obtained over the legislative agenda and the legislative process of our country. In the following paragraphs, I intend to highlight some of the more insidious provisions of this law.

Definitional nightmare

One of the foundations of any sensible legal regime is, the predictability and reasonableness in interpretation. To that end, definitions must be made parsimoniously, so that as little room is left for guesswork or distorted interpretations. In a stroke of deliberate callousness, the authors of this legislation came up with definitions that would be a nightmare in any legal proceeding.

To illustrate – while defining the right to residence, they included the words “have lived at any point of time”.   There is no conception of when, where, how long, contained anywhere in the act. The second example is the definition of “aggrieved person”. Firstly, the aggrieved person can be only be a woman, and the one who is or has been in a domestic relationship. Taken together, these two definitions effectively leave the door open for any unscrupulous woman to implicate any man whom they have successfully induced into some sort of association.

Every word in the definition of the term Domestic Violence is dripping with male hatred of radical feminists. The authors of this legislation have given away unadulterated picture of their true agendas in this definition. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to go read for themselves the definition of Domestic Violence in this act. I just want to highlight one snippet here “any act, omission or commission or conduct”.

Wow! “Any act, omission, commission or conduct”!!! I challenge the morons who authored this idiotic definition, to show one grown up human being (either a man or a woman) in this world, who would not be guilty of having committed domestic violence as per this definition. Given these open ended definitions; one can only surmise what were the true intentions of the authors of this legislation. Was it meant as a true protection from violence for a victimized, helpless woman; or as a weapon of blackmail in the hands of a marauding, vitriolic, supercilious, upwardly mobile, short tempered urban termagant?

Complete marginalization of male in a relationship

The most significant aspect of this whole act is – the systematic destruction of any semblance of the rights of men. Only a male can be accused under this law. Once accused under this law, there is nothing, let me repeat, literally nothing in this act that gives an accused male (the so called respondent) any chance of successful defense. All proceedings are summary – confiscation of his assets, dispossession of his rightful residence and summary penalties etc are all formalized.

Radical feminists like Indira Jaisingh would have you believe that the basis for DV act was respect for human rights of the individuals concerned in a domestic relationship. But you cannot confer rights on one section of the citizenry by removing the fundamental and human rights from another section of the citizenry. This is exactly what the DV act accomplishes.

Lack of proportionality

One major, and perhaps very intentional, flaw in this legislation is the lack of proportionality. In every country in the world, partners in a relationship accumulate rights and responsibilities based on the duration of the relationship – the longer the duration, the higher the accumulation of such rights and responsibilities. Not so under PWDVA of India. Any woman who seduces a man into a day or two of relationship can claim Domestic violence if the man refuses to continue his relationship with the whore. She has same rights under this legislation as the wife of twenty years of a man.

Civil law charade

Another ostensible defense we hear from the proponents of this legislation is that this is a civil remedy. I want to roundly condemn this charade of civil remedy propagated by the feminist propaganda machine.

If you read through the legislation, the proceedings to obtain a protection order are summary and give not much opportunity to the male to either contradict or to have a defense in open court. Once all his defenses are robbed off, and a protection order is made, he is obliged to follow that order. Any violation, intentional or unintentional, is a cognizable and non-bailable criminal offense. This charade of ‘civil law’ is actually a mechanism to co-opt the state machinery in the blackmail scheme. Here is the subtle threat – pay up now, before I convert this into a criminal case.

With 498a, they did not have that opportunity. There was only chance – you file the complaint and hope for the best. The drafters of PWDVA have now rectified the “problem” with the 498a by legislating a so called “civil remedy”, which can be turned into a criminal offence at the convenience of the lady, for most effective extortion.

Intimidation of Judiciary

But for the existence of independent higher judiciary, one can only wonder where the radical feminists would have taken our polity to.   As the judiciary encounters more and more outrageous cases of exploitation like the “Batra vs Batra – 2006” case, they have taken a balanced approach in interpreting the badly drafted laws to preserve harmony in the society while ensuring genuine victims receive justice. Supreme court judgment in Batra vs Batra 2006, is a great example how the courts are performing this balancing act. Let me quote from the above Supreme court judgment – “It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted”.

Many provisions in the “poorly drafted” DV Act do lead to absurdities. It is now befalling on the courts to give sensible interpretation to the most pernicious provisions in the act to forestall chaos in the society. Most litigation in our country is fought in open courts under an adversarial and rule based system we inherited from the English. Most courts pronounce judgments based on the facts of the case coupled with sound reasoning and sensible interpretation of legal provisions. Judgments in the cases of DVAct or Dowry Prohibition act or 498a are no different.

When the apex court of our country made a criticism that the law was poorly drafted, it did not make a cavalier statement without basis in fact. Instead of accepting the fact that the law was indeed poorly drafted, the likes of Indira Jaisingh and Brinda Karat have taken to acts of intimidation of the judiciary. Indira Jaisingh as penned two articles, one titled “Crying hoarse, not wolf”, and “Family against Woman”.   Line by line refutation of both of these inane rants can be done, but serves no purpose. Suffice it to say, both these articles were written with an oblique motive of influencing or intimidating the judiciary to tow the party line. This approach is not new to  Indira Jaisingh, who led several successive, but unsuccessful, attacks to smear the name of Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra.

The feminist collectives have very successfully and effectively rigged the political and legislative processes. However, they could not complete the process by subverting the judiciary as well. Not that they did not try, and to some extent, they may have even succeeded too. But, still one can expect (even an accused male) semblance of justice as he reaches higher echelons of the judiciary. We hope that higher echelons of judiciary will continue to uphold the principles of fair play, constitutional and fundamental rights even in the face of intimidation from corrupt and radical feminists. Any concerted attacks on the judiciary by the radical feminists must be vigorously opposed by all sections of the civil society.

Epilogue on Right to residence

Right to residence is one of the most ill-drafted and pernicious provisions in this act. The following modifications must be incorporated into the act immediately –

a)    The SC guidelines on Shared household as pronounced in Batra vs Batra must be formalized and incorporated into the act. Shared household cannot be the self acquired property of the parents of the male in a domestic relationship. Often, a couple invests a whole lifetime in acquiring s property so they can spend their twilight years in peace and harmony. An irate daughter-in-law in a strained relationship with her husband   should not be allowed to rob them of that.

b)     Joint family property – Often Indian joint families across multiple generations, both vertically and horizontally, tend to live in a joint family property which may consists of only three or four rooms. I was witness to many such families. If an unscrupulous woman is allowed a residence order in such a joint family property, it will result in the dispossession and displacement of multiple members of the joint family.  The needs of residence of an estranged wife or a live-in can surely be met without necessarily dispossessing countless others.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

16 Responses to “Anniversary of the Abomination called PWDVA (Protection of Women Against Domestic Violence Act 2005)”

  1. Sandeep Says:

    Great writeup buddy. You can check also.
    http://indiatalking.com/blog/genderjustise/6249

  2. B D Says:

    It Is a SHIT-LAW thats all. I can not find better words to describe. Pardon me for that.

  3. Sam Says:

    Here is the definition of Domestic Violence under this idiotic law. It is a SHAME on Indian Democracy that such a law is passed in the parliament. It is a proof that Indian polity is fully and successfully hijacked by handful of radical feminists like Indira Jaising. It is time for people to wake up and defend the family against intrusion and destruction by the bitter singles like Indira Jaising and Girija Vyas.

    3. Definition of domestic violence.-

    For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it –

    (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

    (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

    (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

    Explanation I.-For the purposes of this section,-

    (i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;

    (ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;

    (iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes-

    (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and

    (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.

    (iv) “economic abuse” includes-

    (a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;

    (b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and

    (c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.

    Explanation

    II.-For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes “domestic violence” under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.

  4. Protest Letter to The Minister For Women and Child Development, Ms Renuka Chowdhury « Feminist Media Says:

    […] partners in a domestic relationship from abuse by the other partner. What we strenuously oppose is, the ample scope provided in the PWDVA legislation for the abusers of legal processes for personal gain, thereby unleashing “legal terrorism” upon […]

  5. dhanabalan Says:

    marrying a hindu man is the route for amassing wealth by indian women by haraasing husbands and thereby parents of husbands, misusing sentimental legacy of indian culture and peace of husbands minds. high time men should rise up. there is already voices of protests. already learned judges are not simply accepting the false version of women and and when men challenge these provisions notices have ben issued to state and central govts

  6. Anantha Raghava Says:

    is being a loving husband is a crime in our country? That is what this act has transpired in my life. I made a great mistake by taking my wife as partner in all my assets, business, savings, earnings and finally, I am now charged under this DV Act!! Surprising fact is, the courts does not take the cognizance of proofs I provided, but on the other hand charging me & my dead mother!!

  7. Sunil Says:

    Hi Anantha –
    Sorry to hear your case. Most males in India are in the 16th century mindset. Until the bamboo is stuck up their asses, they do not realise the perfidy that is packed into these malicious pieces of legislation passed by anti-social elements in our sham democracy.

    Now that it has happened to you, stop sulking about the injustice and take an oath to do something about it. Join the SIFF movement! Engage these bitches who are promoting “legal terrorism” on every front. Expose them. Shame them. Argue with them. Meet other victims and provide succor to them. That way you would avenge the injustice meted out to you. You will also benefit from the collective wisdom of other members and their experiences.

    Become a commando!!

    • Anantha Raghava Says:

      Hi Sunil,

      I have challenged the entire act myself in the sessions court and got the interim awards granted by the magistrate revised along with some very critical observations & a clear direction to record evidence of both parties. Now the so called better-half is in shambled. escaping from court proceedings. I stood rock solid and had decided, come whatever may, I will not implement even 1% of the order no matter even if they register a contempt of court case against me.

      While the appeal was pending, they went ahead and made applications u/s 31 and registered a case & after more than one & a half year they filed filed another case u/s 125(3) of CrPC for recovery etc.

      Surprising fact is the so called aggrieved does not want to lead evidence in mother case u/s 12(1) of the DV act whereas she has lead her evidence in a case filed u/s 31(1) of the DV Act, which is a criminal case registered as I did not implement the order. The best part is now the aggrieved does not want to tender herself to cross examination!!

      I have even pulled-up the Lawyers Collective – an NGO, where Smt. Indira Jaising is the chairperson and used their own FAQ against them.

      Now all the cases are in their last lap. Once over, I will send the details of the case to SIFF, which may be useful to other suffering husbands as well.

  8. Tejinder Says:

    I have been fighting against feminist attitude of govt,judiciary, police ,media,society etc. for the last seven years or so. Dozens of my communications have been acknowledged by top level Indian and foreign authorities.I have specificially pointed out the wrongs done by senior police officers, administrative machinery,judges of lower courts, high court and supreme court etc. and exposed them, specifying their roles, along with their photographs. In fact, this 498a and other matrimonial cases are a part of an international multi-crore extortion/illegal migration/sex racket involving who’s who of India.The roots of this scandal are very much in the home ministry, ministry of law and justice, PMO,MEA,supreme court.According to an estimate around 30000 such cases take place every year and from my personal experience, I can guess that , on an average,5 lac rupees are cheated from the husband’s side by the govt, police, legal fraternity, judiciary etc. in each case.Then estranged women are lured into prostitution and used by judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, police officers, politicians and other VIP’s. About fifty per cent of their income earned through prostitution, goes to the govt through police. Hence around 3000 crore rupees every year are earned through this racket.Not only in 498a, but a complete mockery of law is made by almost all the authorities including NHRC,CVC etc.(have solid documentary proofs against them) in matrimonail cases. It appears that in this largest democracy of the wolrd, it is a govt by the police (force),govt of pimps (what else will you call those who earn commission in matrimonial disputes ?), govt for prostitutes (unscrupulous women).
    As far as new DVA is concerned, I will suggest that as there are no proofs of the domestic violence (as described under new act)that takes place behind four walls,CCTV cameras should be fitted in every home, starting from the bedrooms of law-makers, judges, NCW members, media personnel and other VIP’s so that it may be known whether there is any cruelty to women being practices there or not, whether they are watching blue movies or not and so on. And live-telelcast of these bedroom scenes should be encouraged in the interest of transparency.

  9. Sam Says:

    The ba$!@#ds who wrote the PWDVA and the shameless MPs who voted for this monstrosity without much discussion or debate, shall forever be cursed and their carcasses shall rot in putrid garbage dumps. Their children and their children shall forever be destroyed or turned into prostitutes and pimps. How dare they think they can confiscate the hardearned money of the individuals and rob the other legitimate dependents (old parents, unmarried sisters) of their dues without due process or sense of proportion. There is no limit to the compensations, there is no proof required for allegations, and there is no sense of proportion as to what contributions the hoe alleging DV has made to the family. Bloody rascals!

    Read these “monetary relief” provisions – the powers granted to the magistrate, the corrupt magistrate who can easily be bought off. What an eternal shame this PWDVA will turn out to be in our country’s jurisprudence.

    ——-
    Section 27 (Chapter 27) Power to grant interim and exparte orders.

    23. Power to grant interim and ex parte orders.-

    (1) In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.

    (2) If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses
    that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic
    violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent..

    Section 30 (Chapter 30) Relief in other suits and legal proceedings.

    26.* Relief in other suits and legal proceedings*.-

    (1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be
    sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a
    criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act.

    (2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition
    to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in
    such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal court.

    (3) In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any
    proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief.
    Now for Interim maintenance :

    —-
    *Section 24 (Chapter 24) Monetary reliefs.*

    20.* Monetary reliefs*.-

    (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12,
    the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,-

    (a) the loss of earnings;

    (b) the medical expenses;

    (c) the loss caused due to the destruction, damage or removal of any
    property from the control of the aggrieved person; and

    (d) the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if
    any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance
    under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.

    (2) The monetary relief granted under this section shall be adequate, fair
    and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the
    aggrieved person is accustomed.

    (3) The Magistrate shall have the power to order an appropriate lump sum payment or monthly payments of maintenance, as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.(4) The Magistrate shall send a copy of the order for monetary relief made under sub-section (1) to the parties to the application and to the in charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides.

    (5) The respondent shall pay the monetary relief granted to the aggrieved person within the period specified in the order under sub-section (1).

    (6) Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.

  10. avni patel Says:

    You men sitting on your soft cushioned chairs have no idea, i repeat no idea of what it is like out there…i strongly recommend you switch off your PC’s and do a reality check on how hostile the judiciary can be to a woman who has no money or a roof over her head…

    it would be more constructive if men and women would join hands to make the judicial process and law enforcement cleaner, accountable and transparent.

  11. krishna Says:

    Avni –

    One of the great disservices the radical feminists like Indira Jaising have done to women’s cause is – lumping the genuine cases of domestic violence victims with those of the victimisers (ie., those who abuse the legal provisions for personal gain or vendetta). These idiotic laws penned by idiots and male hating malefactors have only one goal in mind – victimize men as much as possible. In the process whether a woman benefits or ten other women suffer is immaterial for them. As long as men suffer, their agendas are met.

    If you are a genuine victim and want redress for only genuine victims, then raise your voice to remove the scope for misuse of the women protection laws. Otherwise, the vocal non-victims will drown out the voices of genuine victims and derive undeserved benefits at the expense of social tranquility. Choice is yours!

  12. Domestic Violence Awareness Month – India « Feminist Media Says:

    […] to India. The result was the most insidious and most ridiculous DV legislation in the form of Protection Of Women against Domestic Violence Act 2005, passed by the Indian Parliament on Oct 26, […]

  13. raj Says:

    DV act is violation of Indian constitution article 14 , 15 and 15(a). Please email me if you need more clarification on this.

  14. Anantha Raghava Says:

    Raj,

    What is your e-mail id?

    Anantha Raghava

  15. SIVARAMAKRISHNAKUMAR Says:

    DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005 IS A CLIMPSY,BADLY DRAFTED AND LEGAL TERRORISTIC LAW MADE BY MINDLESS AND OR MAD FEMINISTS WHICH CREATES HATENESS IN THE MINDS OF MEN AGAINST WOMEN AND PREPARE GOONDAS BY INCULCATING SUCH IDEAS IN THE MINDS OF MEN THEREBY THROWING WOMENS WELFARE INTO DUSTBIN.NOBODY WILL COME TO WOMEN’S RESCUE EXCEPT THEY BECOME KEEPS TO MEN FOR THEIR SUPPORT WHEN THE DV ACT USED BY THEM AGAINST THEIR HUSBAND.POLITICIANS,POLICE,COLLEAGUES IN OFFICES USE THEM AS CONCUBINES BY TAKING ADVANTAGE FR IT.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: