Dismissed

Oneza Intekhab Alam Munshi v. Shirin Riaz Ahmed Munshi and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Jan 2020APL/88/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application, the Bombay HC dealt with a plea under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the mother-in-law and sister-in-law against the applicant daughter-in-law. Relying on Hiral P. Harsora where 'adult male' was deleted from Section 2(q), the court held the application is not unsustainable and dismissed the plea.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was dismissed.

Oneza Intekhab Alam Munshi Vs Shirin Riaz Ahmed Munshi and… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

26-APL-88-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.88 OF 2019

¶5

ONEZA INTEKHAB ALAM MUNSHI)...APPLICANT

¶6

V/s.

¶7

SHIRIN RIAZ AHMED MUNSHI & ORS.)...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.Amin Solkar a/w. Ms.Misbaah Solkar, Advocate for the
Applicant.

¶9

Mr.Vincent D’Silva a/w. Mr.Sujit Mane, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

Mr.A.R.Patil, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

CORAM:A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE:9th JANUARY 2020

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1By this application, the applicant, who happens to be

¶14

respondentin an application under Section 12 of the Protection of

¶15

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is praying for quashing

¶16

and setting aside the said proceedings bearing Miscellaneous

¶17

avk 1/4

¶18

26-APL-88-2019.doc

¶19

Application No.142 of 2018 pending on the file of the learned 3rd
Joint Civil Judge, Vasai, District Palghar.

¶20

2Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant.
He vehemently argued that without there being an “adult male
person” as a respondent, the sole female cannot be arraigned as a
respondent in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned counsel
further argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court has not considered
provisions of Article 15 of the Constitution of India while deciding
the matter in betweenHiral P. Harsora and Others vs. Kusum
Narottamdas Harsora and Others1. The learned counsel for the

¶21

applicant argued that Article 15 deals with making of special
provision for women and children by the State and therefore, the
application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 preferred by respondents against the
applicant, who happens to be daughter-in-law, is not
maintainable.

¶22

1 LAW (SC)-2016-10-14

¶23

avk 2/4

¶24

26-APL-88-2019.doc

¶25

3The learned counsel appearing for respondents
strenuously urged that the position of law is crystallized by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter ofHiral P. Harsora (supra) and
as Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 is effaced from the statute book, being held
ultra vires, there is no substance in the application.

¶26

4I have considered the submissions so advanced and

¶27

also perused the material placed before me.

¶28

5In an application under Section 12 of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 filed by the mother-in-
law and sister-in-law / respondents against the applicant herein, it
is alleged that they were in domestic relationship with the
applicant herein. Acts of domestic violence are also pleaded in the
said application. In the said application, the present applicant
who happens to be daughter-in-law, is arraigned as sole
respondent.

¶29

avk 3/4

¶30

26-APL-88-2019.doc

¶31

6In the matter of Hiral P. Harsora (supra) the Hon'ble

¶32

Apex Court is pleased to declare that the words “adult male” in
Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 shall stand deleted and consequently, it is further
declared that proviso to Section 2(q) of the said Act being
rendered otiose, stands deleted.

¶33

7In this view of the matter, there is no substance in the

¶34

application. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

¶35

avk 4/4

Oneza Intekhab Alam Munshi v. Shirin Riaz Ahmed Munshi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Oneza Intekhab Alam Munshi v. Shirin Riaz Ahmed Munshi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Vilas Sitaram Kulkarni and Another. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri.Vishwas Bhosale,Asstt.Coll.of Customs Vs Chandra Narotam Bhatia and Ors.

Dastagir Mohammad Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Laxman Shankar Sanap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Nupesh Rohidas Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Pushpa Dnyaneshwar Vhatkar Vs Vinayak Dnyaneshwar Vhatkar and Ors.