Retrospective Clause in DV - Strategy

Well guys the retrospectiveness of DV has been a controversial topic of late. And the law being silent about it, the judiciary uses it to its own whims and fancies most of the times which are biased against men. Alleged acts of violence committed prior to 26th Oct 2006, the day the devilish DV law came in effect, are made part of petition and cases are getting registered.
But retrospectiveness in law is a serious issue and allowing retrospective matters in admittance of cases can have serious implications. As technological advances follows Murphy’s rule, newer dangers are also getting exposed and newer legal provisions can also come into effect. What was legal now can be illegal later, so do we book all those persons who committed a hitherto legal, but hence illegal action deemed as offense? Rationally and logically, No.
Coming back to DV, prior to it being enacted, calling names to wives was not an offense and some husband might have called his wife with some name, either out of love and affection or in a fit of anger, which even the wife must have done. But since DV outlines it as an offense only for the husband, allowing retrospective clause in DV law, all wives can book their husbands under DV and 100 % marriages will break. So retrospective clause is not healthy from a social and a futuristic standpoint of legal consideration.
Again arguing that DV does not attract penal consequences and the same arise only when protection order is violated and that offense will not be retrospective, then it must be remembered that in first place, case should not have registered, so no protection order should have been passed. So no possibility of commission of offense if retrospective clause is not defined for DV. But since the court has allowed it, it is also an equal party to the offense and should share the penalty!!! What an absurdity?
http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=13665
Hence taking a cue from the above judgment and using the aforesaid logic, we can develop a strong petition to challenge retrospectiveness of DV and challenge any such summons under 397 CrPC and bring the case to a halt.

Also specifically,

DV Cannot be used retrospectively

1)SLP(C) No.25219 of 2004 delivered by the Honorble Supreme Court of India where in it was held Penal Statutes (Acts) which create
new offences are always Prospective

2)1993 Crl.J 2636 delivered by Honorble Allahabad High Court where in it was held the accused was acquitted for the offences
punishable u/s 304B as the dowry death took place prior to the commencement of the act 304B.

Domestic Violence Lanmark Judgements

1) Crl.P 3714 of 2007 delivered by the Hon´ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held "It is a fundamental principle of law that any penal provision has no retrospective operation but only prospective. There is no allegation either in the report or in the statement or in the complaint on the 1st Respondent with regards to the acts of domestic violence that took place on or after 26-10-2006.Therefor e continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of court".

2) I (2008) DMC 1 delivered by the Hon´ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that "" Complaint for this offence can only be filed against adult male person and further held in 3( C ) that as provided by sec 2(q)of the act, such application u/s 12 of the act can´t be filed against petitioner´s who are ladies ".

3) 2007(2) ALT (Crl.) 504(A.P) delivered by the Hon´ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held "as there is no claim made against the other respondents, continuing process against them is a clear abuse of law".

4) I (2007) DMC 1 (SC) = 2007(3) ALT (Crl.) 1(SC) delivered by the Hon´ble Supreme Court of India where in it was held"claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband but not to the In-laws".

Post-498a Scenario: When passport is feared of being seized, and person anticipates detention for an unreasonable time

If the husband(or the victim family) is working abroad, and is facing a high profile opponent who is legally terrorising them, with the girl's side having a lot of political or other influence, and has a lot of clout in the system. The bail may be opposed strongly, or after bail they may have to attend police station at frequent interwels or at the will of the police- this itself is a worry- but an application to relax the bail conditions could be the remedy).


The main problems are whether the bail would be denied or whether the passport will be impounded/seized and they will be kept remanded for an unreasonable time(there by affecting ones job) with influence and money power.

See how Mr.Rao had got the passport released from HC andhra(see details in message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saveindianfamily/message/19156 ). One could also try emailing Mr.Rao email: rao257 (at) yahoo.com.

But in these kind of cases the real trouble is with the influence and power of the girls side, and to nuetralise the potency of the girl's side influence, one has try and submit petitions(to Authorities right from PM, President to MP,MLA, political party local presidents & other important office holders, similarly with the police authorities from IG to SHO(Station's Senior inspector, clearly mention the police station and Court where ur case is going on in your petitions)) mentioning the boys apprehensions of being detained for an unreasonable time in india with his passport also not being given back, there by affecting/losing his job abroad, etc. etc.

The effect of this kind of petition is not because all those higher officials and authorities care a damn, but that the Station Senior inspector, other police officers involved in the case and DCP of the zone, and the Magistrate(put a copy to the magistrate too, ask your advocate about this) will think twice about yielding to the influence of the girl's side.

But one may have reservations about this strategy, since both the families could have a lot of common friends and 'biradri' folks between them- but what better to do , in this case(or for that matter any other), other than to fight out fully.

This is exactly the same strategy which saved many victims(this was actually advised by a high ranking police officer, so do understand that this is a time-tested and sure-fire strategy)- as this has worked out in the boys favour in cases where the girls side were putting a lot of pressure right from delhi to the local congress committee, etc.- but they are all free and hitting back at the girls side now

The son can avoid coming to India and just be where he is, but the parents Passports also could be seized, and hence they cant visit their son + this 498a case will never be closed until the son comes and faces the legal procedures. Better fight now, sooner or later u will have to either do it or submit to the oppression- this is our frank opinion.

Some references, coutsey to the respective sources(not plaigerism, just info dissemination)

1) http://ipc498a.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/sc-judgment-maneka-gandhi-vs-union-of-india-1978/ ->

SC Judgment: Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India (1978)Published April 12th, 2007 :

This will be useful to those of you hounded by a Red Corner Alert or threats of Passport impoundment.
The SC intrepreted this as a case for due process. The article from the Hindu is given below:

http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=5154

The SC kept the passport, but she was given a hearing.
A warning! It is a 144 page judgment.