67 )AIC5 (S.C. ), AIR2016 SC 4774 , 2017 (2 )ALD95 , 2017 (1 ) ALD(Crl.) 923 (SC ), 2016 (97 ) ACC 425 , 2016 ALLMR(Cri)4930 , 2016 (119 ) ALR 462 , 2017 (2 ) ALT (Crl.) 217 (A.P.), 2016 6 AWC5830 SC , 2016 (6 )BomCR505 , 2017 (1 )CDR18 (SC ), 2016 (5 ) CHN (SC ) 86 , 2017 CriLJ509 , 2016 (4 )Crimes91 (SC ), 120(1) CWN162 , 233 (2016 )DLT154 , III (2016 )DMC438 SC , 2016 (4 )ECrN (NULL ) 491 , 2017 (2 )GLT1 , 2016 (3 )HLR516 (SC ), ILR2016 (4 )Kerala179 , 2016 INSC 955 , 2016 (4 )J.L.J.R.252 , 2016 (4 )JCC2659 , 2016 (4 )JKJ1 [SC ], 2018 (1 )JLJ529 , 2016 (5 ) KHC 15 , 2016 (4 )KLJ376 , 2016 (4 )KLT268 , 2017 -3 -LW28 , 2017 (2 )MhLj147 , 2017 (1 )MLJ(Crl)348 , 2017 (2 )MPLJ20 , 2016 (II )OLR995 , 2016 (4 )PLJR348 , 2016 (4 )RCR(Civil)750 , 2016 (4 )RCR(Criminal)433 , 2017 (1 )RLW689 (SC ), 2016 (9 )SCALE776 , (2016 )10 SCC165 , 2016 (9 ) SCJ 204 , [2016 ]9 SCR515 , 2017 (1 )UC11 , 2016 (4 ) WLN 19 (SC ), ,MANU/SC/1269/2016
Kurian Joseph#Rohinton Fali Nariman#265SC3050Judgment/OrderADJ#AIC#AIR#ALD#ALD(Cri)#Allahabad Criminal Cases#ALLMR (Criminal)#ALR#ALT (Criminal)#AWC#BomCR#CDR#CHN#CriLJ#Crimes#CWN#DLT#DMC#ECrN#GLT#HLR#ILR (Kerala)#INSC#JLJR#JCC#JKJ#JLJ#KHC#KLJ#KLT#LW#MANU#MhLJ#MLJ(Criminal)#MPLJ#OLR#PLJR#RCR (Civil)#RCR (Criminal)#RLW#SCALE#SCC#SCJ#SCR#UC#WLNRohinton Fali Nariman,SUPREME COURT OF INDIA2016-10-1475750,16910,75783,89271,16344,16911,16918,75763,16545,75769,75770,75771,75772,75773,67463,75752,75768,75777,75782,89921,16916,184602,75784,200696,75759,75758 -->
MANU/SC/1269/2016
True Court CopyTM English
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 10084 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9132 of 2015)
Decided On: 06.10.2016
Appellants: Hiral P. Harsora and Ors. Vs. Respondent: Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors. ..(+)
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman JUDGMENT
Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 25.9.2014 of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. It raises an important question as to the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as "the 2005 Act").
3. On 3.4.2007, Kusum Narottam Harsora and her mother Pushpa Narottam Harsora filed a complaint under the 2005 Act against Pradeep, the brother/son, and his wife, and two sisters/daughters, alleging various acts of violence against them. The said complaint was withdrawn on 27.6.2007 with liberty to file a fresh complaint.
4. Nothing happened for over three years till the same duo of mother and daughter filed two separate complaints against the same Respondents in October, 2010. An application was moved before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for a discharge of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 stating that as the complaint was made Under Section 2(a) read with Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act, it can only be made against an adult male person and the three Respondents not being adult male persons were, therefore, required to be discharged. The Metropolitan Magistrate passed an order dated 5.1.2012 in which such discharge was refused. In a writ petition filed against the said order, on 15.2.2012, the Bombay High........