Begin typing your search...

Judge laments lack of law against women for harassing husbands

Noting that there “unfortunately” was no provision like the Domestic Violence (DV) Act to proceed against the wife by the husband, a single judge of the Madras High Court observed that the word ‘sacrament’ has lost all meaning in a marriage after the advent of the Act that approved live-in-relationships.

Judge laments lack of law against women for harassing husbands
X
File photo.
  • Whatsapp
  • Telegram
  • Linkedin
  • Print
  • koo
  • Whatsapp
  • Telegram
  • Linkedin
  • Print
  • koo
  • Whatsapp
  • Telegram
  • Linkedin
  • Print
  • koo

Chennai

Passing orders on a plea wherein the wife, anticipating a decree of divorce, had allegedly got the husband booked under the DV Act leading to his suspension, Justice S Vaidyanathan said, “The present generation must understand that marriage is not a contract, but a sacramental one. Of course, the word ‘sacrament’ has no meaning after coming into effect of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, that approves live-in-relationship,” the judge said.

“The husband and wife must realise that ‘ego’ and ‘intolerance’ are like footwear and should be left out of their house when they enter the home, else, the child/children will have to face a miserable life,” he added.

As per the case, the petitioner employed at the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services was placed under suspension on the ground of his involvement in a domestic issue. While the petitioner’s wife had initiated a complaint under the DV Act against him in 2014 at the Additional Mahila Court, Salem, the petitioner had moved the family court, Salem, seeking divorce in 2015.

The family court allowed the divorce petition filed by the petitioner on the ground of alleged cruelty and voluntary desertion by his wife on February 19, 2020. But at the time of awaiting verdict, another complaint was lodged by the wife under the DV Act, resulting in a criminal case being filed against the husband.

Justice Vaidyanathan set aside the suspension of the petitioner, pointing out that the complaint being given four days prior to the grant of divorce by the family court itself clearly showed that the wife anticipated divorce order and created unnecessary trouble to the petitioner.“As the family issue has already been dissolved by the Family Court on Feb 19, 2020, the question of placing the petitioner under suspension does not arise, more so, when there is a finding of cruelty and voluntary desertion by the wife,” the court held while noting that the suspension was unwarranted.The judge also pointed out that in case the matter either ended in a compromise or the petitioner was acquitted of the charges, as the Family Court has already held that there was cruelty and desertion by the wife, the petitioner would have to be paid by the government without extracting any work.

“As the case on hand is an exceptional one, this court interferes with the impugned order of suspension passed by the Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, to reinstate the petitioner in service within 15 days,” Justice Vaidyanathan ruled.

Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

Click here for iOS

Click here for Android

migrator
Next Story