In Brief
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that the words "adult male" in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 violate Article 14 (equality) of the Constitution. The Court found that restricting the definition of "respondent" to adult males lacks rational connection to the Act's purpose of protecting women from domestic violence "of any kind." Because the Act's other provisions—defining domestic violence gender-neutrally, addressing aiding/abetting, and setting residence orders—can be circumvented if female perpetrators are excluded, the classification defeats the statute's object. Applying the severability doctrine, the Court struck down "adult male" and the associated proviso, leaving the remainder of the Act intact and enforceable.</summary_100> <parameter name="citations">[]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.