-Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra
In contrast to what the noble Justice Dhingra has written, please read the drivel dished out by the leading Indian Feminazi, Indira Jaising. Here is the link to the IE article titled Family Against Woman. I believe it should have been titled Woman Against Family:
Here is the report she published on the first anniversary of the DV Act called “Staying Alive”. This report was paid for by UNIFEM and it is full of bullshit. This is the report that establishes the link between her and the IGP called S Umapathi, who has allegedly been selling Interpol Red Corner notices against NRI techies from AP.
An excerpt: “This provision suffered a major setback at the hands of the judiciary. The Supreme Court, even before the ink on the Act was dry, declared in a judgment that a woman could claim this right only in relation to a household owned/ rented by her husband. This means that even if her husband lives with his parents and she has her matrimonial residence there, she cannot claim right to residence there. The judgment not only overlooks the law itself, it also overlooks the existing social reality of the joint family, which continues to be the predominant pattern.”
Here is the excerpt from the SC judgment, Batra Vs Batra, 2007.
Below is what the judges of the Supreme Court had to say about this badly drafted law, and this is what Indira Jaising is moaning.
“20. If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband’s father, husband’s paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned Counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband’s relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the all these houses of her husband’s relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past.
Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd.. It is well settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted.
23. No doubt, the definition of ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.”
The strategy of Indian feminazis has been to attack, and encourage attacks, on the judiciary whenever they faced a set back. The ongoing attacks on Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra are prime examples of this strategy in action.
Here is a classic from the idiocy called the PWDVA, 2005.
17. Right to reside in a shared household.-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same.
Hello !! This is a carte blanche to legally occupy the home of anyone unfortunate enough to have had a “domestic relationship” with a woman in India. A woman who has been in a domestic relationship, now has more power than the PM or the CM to strip a person of his right to own his own property. It is no wonder that the SC called it a clumsily drafted law.
- The Bare Act: The Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence (Text) (Pdf from the NCW site)
- MP HC: DV Act Cannot Be Filed Against Female Relatives: Another reason for Indira Jaising to moan about
- Sonia Vs Vinod: Domestic Violence Case: The abuse of the law has started.
- The Govt Is ReviewingDV Act Due To Its Idiocy
- Catfight between WCD and Indira Jaising Over Review Of The DV Act
- Center On The Backfoot Due to Clumsy Drafting Of DV Act
- The Lawyers Collective Report was from a grant by Unifem
- Former CJ of AP/Calcutta HC Derides DV Act
- Right To Residence Only From Husband And Not In-Laws: Delhi Court-Jul 2007
- Swarup Sarkar Scores A Personal Goal Against The DV Act-2007
- Domestic Violence Law – A Recipe For Disaster?
- More from HT
- A critique Of Batra Vs Batra By Lawyers Collective
- The DV Core Group
- Divorces on the rise. More women joining the ranks of Indira Jaising