For victims within four walls

With the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the government has at last come to the rescue of the battered woman.

MIXED feelings have greeted the arrival of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Women's groups all over the country have been happy, if not exactly ecstatic, that the government has at last come to the rescue of the battered woman. They have some reservations on the ability of the enforcement mechanism to rise to the occasion. Nevertheless, the entry of such a law into the statute book is a good beginning that can be improved upon. This optimism about the new law is in total contrast to the reactions of sections of men. There is somehow a feeling among them that, as in the case of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, there will be frivolous complaints that could result in their harassment and humiliation, and even financial ruin. It is easy to dismiss such fears as imaginary. At least some of us, who have intimate knowledge of how the police, especially the women's wing, have exploited the situation, tend to understand this fear.

As in the case of other pieces of social legislation, many misconceptions have been the order of the day. Not many choose to study the Act and generate a focussed and helpful debate that should enhance understanding and promote adherence to certain standards of civilised conduct that the law demands. I must compliment the government for taking space in leading newspapers to highlight the salient features of the Act.

It is not part of the criminal law of the land. It sets up civil liability of one who torments a woman in the domestic setting. Some definitions incorporated in the Act are useful for an easy understanding of what is objectionable conduct and what is not. Some may not endorse all the definitions, which undoubtedly must have tested the ingenuity of the draftsmen. The Law Ministry has had to accommodate the views of diverse women's groups who have been battling for such a law for 16 years.

The most crucial of definitions is `domestic violence', embodied in Section 3 of the Act. It covers both omission and commission, as well as conduct of a `Respondent' who causes harm or injury to the `Aggrieved Person' by way of physical, sexual, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse. Coercion of an Aggrieved Person to extract any dowry, or other property or a valuable security will also be reckoned as `domestic violence'. Such conduct is prohibited, even if it has the effect of a threat or when it "injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental to the aggrieved person".

While physical and emotional abuse is relatively simple to understand and define, `economic abuse' yields itself to varied interpretation and demands elaboration. This is what Section 3 does. Such abuse would include "deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom, whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise... " What is again remarkable is that the Act prohibits denying the Aggrieved Person "continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship, including access to the shared household." (This definition obviously takes into account the not uncommon merciless act of some husbands turning wives and children away from home, following a bitter domestic quarrel.)

The `Aggrieved Person' need not necessarily be the wife. It could be any woman in a "domestic relationship" with the Respondent. This naturally refers to the increasingly accepted practice of a man and woman living together under the same roof outside wedlock. What is unique is that the definition extends to all family members living together as a "joint family". This would mean that an Aggrieved Person could even be a mother or sister abused by the Respondent. It should be obvious that an `Aggrieved Person' is a woman and the `Respondent' is "any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person... "

The Act contemplates creation of `Protection Officers' by State governments in every district (the number of such officers would vary depending upon the extent of a district) to whom any person, not necessarily the Aggrieved Person, could report an act of domestic violence or its likelihood. It is the duty of such officers, whose jurisdiction will be carved out by the State government through a notification, to make out a `Domestic Incident Report' in a prescribed format to the Magistrate and to assist him further in the matter.

Most significant is that the Act does not divest a police officer of his duty under any other law to proceed with information that makes out a cognisable offence. This is where there are genuine apprehensions of victimisation of an innocent person against whom a woman or her associates complain out of pique, as has been happening now in respect of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Senior police officers will be failing in their duty if they are not sensitive to this fear of law-abiding citizens. Training of police at the grassroots level, unless accompanied by drastic punitive action against official misconduct, will be of no avail.

The Act also recognises a category of `Service Providers', which are voluntary agencies set up with the objective of protecting the rights and interests of women and who register themselves with the State government for rendering assistance to women subjected to domestic violence. An Aggrieved Person may bring to the notice of such Service Providers any act of domestic violence. The latter may forward a complaint to the Magistrate or Protection Officer, as also send the victim for medical examination. The Magistrate, who receives a complaint, either directly or through the Protection Officer or Service Provider, first hears the Aggrieved Person and the Respondent, and once convinced that an act of domestic violence has been committed, passes a `Protection Order' that prohibits the Respondent from further engaging in the acts coming under the definition of `domestic violence'. Apart from any other directions (including monetary relief for compensating losses suffered or expenses incurred by the Aggrieved Person) to ensure protection of the Aggrieved Person, the Magistrate is also empowered to direct the Respondent to stay away from the shared household. The monetary relief ordered would not preclude any subsequent compensation that may be granted by the Magistrate under the Act. Incidentally, a violation of the Protection Order is an offence under the Act and may result in imprisonment for one year or a fine (up to Rs.20,000), or both.

The Act is a carefully drawn-up law that takes care of many possible situations. It fulfils a long-felt need. It is as down-to-earth as is possible under the circumstances that prevail in our society. While I must confess that I had not followed the debate (that preceded its promulgation) in its entirety, I hear that the legislation has gone substantially by the views aired by leading women's organisations. This is its strongest point.

Having won this battle, it is for such organisations to monitor implementation with an eagle eye. The greatest tragedy will be an absence of such monitoring that can lead to immense abuse, not only by the police but also by other players here. This would include the Magistracy which, like any other body of public servants in this country, harbours unfortunately in its ranks a few with doubtful integrity. It is this aspect of the scene that worries me most.

In sum, this is not the easiest of legislation to draft and to implement. It should be made to work effectively to benefit all victims, poor or rich, educated or unlettered. This national cause will enhance or lower our image internationally, depending on the success or failure of the law. If we succeed, we can be proud, because I know, how the United Kingdom and the United States are still struggling miserably to cope with domestic violence.