https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300933 The Supreme Court held that the words "adult male" in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 created an unconstitutional and discriminatory restriction because domestic violence, shared households and domestic relationships are not confined to male perpetrators. The Court found the exclusion of female relatives and non-adult persons lacked a rational nexus with the Act's protective purpose and was inconsistent with its gender-neutral scheme. It further held that reading down could not rewrite the clear phrase, but the offending words were severable. The words "adult male" and the consequential proviso were struck down, expanding the definition of "Respondent" to preserve the Act's remedial operation. en-us Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Mar 2022 08:55:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300933 The Supreme Court held that the words "adult male" in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 created an unconstitutional and discriminatory restriction because domestic violence, shared households and domestic relationships are not confined to male perpetrators. The Court found the exclusion of female relatives and non-adult persons lacked a rational nexus with the Act's protective purpose and was inconsistent with its gender-neutral scheme. It further held that reading down could not rewrite the clear phrase, but the offending words were severable. The words "adult male" and the consequential proviso were struck down, expanding the definition of "Respondent" to preserve the Act's remedial operation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300933