the reach of the Act would have to be either struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution or read down. According to her, given the object of the statute, which is discernible clearly from the statement of objects and reasons, the preamble, and various provisions of the 2005 Act which she took us through, it is clear that the expression "adult male person" is a classification not based on any intelligible differentia, and not having any rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved by the Act. In fact, in her submission, the said expression goes contrary to the object of the Act, which is to afford the largest possible protection to women from domestic violence by any person, male or female, who happens to share either a domestic relationship or shared household with the said woman. In the alternative, she argued that the High Court judgment was right, and that ifthe said expression is not struck down, it ought to be read down in the manner suggested to make it constitutional. She also added that the doctrine of severability would come to her rescue, and that ifthe said expression were deleted from Section 2(q), the Act as a whole would stand and the object sought to be achieved would only then be fulfilled. She referred to a large number of judgments on Article 14 and the doctrine of severability generally. She also argued that within the definition of"shared household" in Section 2(s) of the Act, the "respondent" may be a member of a joint family. She has adverted to the amendment made to the Hindu Succession Act in 2005, by which amendment females have also become coparceners in a joint Hindu family, and she argued that therefore the 2005 Act is not in tune with the march of statutory law in other areas. She also countered the submission ofShri Raval stating that the 2005 Act is in fact a piece of beneficial legislation which is not penal in nature but which affords various remedies which are innovative in nature and which cannot be availed of in the ordinary civil courts. She added that Section 31 alone was a penal provision for not complying with a protection order, and ·went on to state that the modern rule as to penal provisions is different from that sought to be contended by Shri Raval, and that such rule requires the court to give a fair interpretation to the provisions of these statutes, neither leaning in favour of the accuser or the accused. She also added that given the beneficial statute that we have to strike down/ interpret, a purposive construction alone should be given, and as the offending expression "adult male per:son" is contrary to such purpose and would lead to absurdities and anomalies, it ought to be construed in tune with the Act as a whole, which therefore would include females, as
