Goforthelaw.com - Legal Education and Awareness
  Home  |  About Us  |   R & D   -   LL.B. Previous Question Papers   |  Articles   |  Moot Court   |  Discussion Forum   |  Directories   |  Law Web Journal   |  Contact Us   |   Login  

Legal Empowerment through Professional Excellence

Frequently Asked Questions 

Follow Goforthelaw on Facebook Follow Goforthelaw on Twitter Follow Goforthelaw on Blogger Join Goforthelaw on LinkedIn Subscribe - RSS feed here

Problem Details
Title Soubhagya Vs Union of India and another
Problem By Rahul Reddy


The Union of India enacted ‘ The protection of women from Domestic Violence Act 2005’ with an object to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family & for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Act came into force through out India on 13.09.2005.


Karunadu is a welfare state in the Union of India & Kalyan nagar is a district within the state of Karnataka.


Respondent No 2 Ramesh is the resident of Kalyan nagar He is a software engineer by

profession getting a handsome salary of Rs: 1 lakh pm. With his earnings respondent

No:2 purchased a house at Kalyan nagar, In the year 2008 he married the petitioner Soubhagya who too is a software-engineer by profession and earning hand some salary of Rs: 80,000/- pm. They lived happily for about six months in said house at Kalyan nagar. Thereafter differences cropped between them resulting in the petitioner being subject to domestic violence by respondent -No:2 & finally he was driven out of his house by the respondent No2


Petitioner Soubhagya filed an application in the Court of JMFC, Kalyan nagar under section 12 of The protection of women from Domestic violence Act 2005, alleging that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent No:2 & interalia sought following reliefs

i) restraining or prohibiting the respondent No:2 from operating bank lockers & bank accounts held singly by him, (U/s 18(e))

ii) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing,off or renouncing his rights in the shared house hold or encumbering the same situated at Kalyan nagar, owned by the respondent No:2 (U/s 19 (d)& (e))

iii) directing the respondent No:2 to remove himself from the above shared house hold (U/s 19 (b))

iv) monetary relief of providing her maintenance by the respondent No:2. (U/s 20 (d)).



The respondent No: 2 opposed the application on the grounds that shared house hold and the bank lockers & accounts are his self acquired properties & petitioner has no right /title over it. She is even not entitled for maintenance as she is able to maintain herself with her handsome salary. The respondent No:2 further contended that having regard to relief s sought against him, the application of the petitioner against him is not sustainable in view of section 36 of The protection of women from Domestic violence Act 2005.


The learned JMFC, Kalyan nagar upholding the contentions of the respondent No 2 {with the reasoning that petitioner’s relief’s of restraint are untenable as under the Hindu Law

the respondent No:2 is the absolute owner of his self acquired properties and under Hindu Law and also under 125 CrPC the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance as she is able to maintain her self } rejects the application of the petitioner.

Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner challenges the constitutional validity of section 36 of The protection of women from Domestic violence Act 2005, in the High Court of Karunadu, contending that said section 36 is violative of article 15(3) of the constitution of Indian & the said section nullifies the entire Act & therefore is unreasonable. Its constitution validity is also challenged on the ground that retaining said section creates two classes among women itself.


(Before the Hon’ble High Court the respondent No:2 remains absent.)



Issues raised

1) Whether section 36 of Domestic violence act is ultra vires to Article 15 (3) of the constitution of India.

2) Whether section 36 of Domestic violence act is against the objective of the said act and other sections of the said act, If so can it be held ultra vires of the constitution.

3) Whether section 36 is discriminatory among woman having regard to the object to the act and is thereby voilative of article 14 of the constitution of India.

Login to respond! | 3 Responses | View Responses
WorldLII (World Legal Information Institute) Supreme Court of India - Judgements from 1950 - Legislation (ACTS) from 1836 - Law Commission of India - Reports from 1999 -
Causelist Websites A.P High Court Daily Causelist | Central Administrative Tribunal | A.P State Administrative Tribunal  |   Supreme Court of India  |   Causelists for all Courts |
Terms and conditions - Disclaimer - Website Map    | Copyright 2009 - 10 www.goforthelaw.com. All rights reserved