The Delhi High Court acknowledged the presence of domestic violence concerns among female police officers, highlighting the unique challenges they face. This recognition underscores the need for targeted support and policies within law enforcement agencies to address such issues effectively. By acknowledging these realities, the court emphasizes the importance of creating safe and supportive work environments for all officers.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court, led by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, recently emphasized that being a police officer does not preclude one from being a victim of domestic violence. This assertion came during a decision that overturned a lower court’s judgment which had dismissed charges against a man accused of cruelty by his wife, who is also a police officer.
The sessions court previously dismissed the charges under Section 498A (cruelty) in conjunction with Section 34 (acts done with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing the professional status of both the accused and the complainant as police officers.
Read Also:Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal Decisions: Affirms High Courts’ Writ Jurisdiction
However, Justice Sharma criticized this decision, stating,
“The opinion of a court of law cannot be colored by any gender-based or stereotypical perceptions about a profession.”
Justice Sharma further elaborated that it is biased and unjust to assume that a police officer could not be subjected to domestic violence, highlighting that,
“Making such assumptions would amount to holding that a person in a particular profession will always behave in a way as perceived by the public.”
This stance challenges the preconceived notions about the invulnerability of law enforcement personnel to such personal issues.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma‘s bench at the Delhi High Court highlighted a paradox in the case where both parties, the husband and the wife, hold the same position within the Delhi Police. Despite their equivalent status, the court criticized the lower court’s rationale which suggested that the wife’s role as a police officer negated the possibility of her being intimidated or harassed.
The bench pointed out,
“The position of the wife as a police officer has been held against her, observing that since she is a police officer, she cannot be intimidated, harassed, dowry cannot be demanded from her, she cannot be tolerant in order to save her marriage, totally ignoring her specific allegation and submission that she had kept on waiting and hoping for her return to her matrimonial home and saving her marriage.”
Additionally, the court noted a bias in favor of the husband, asserting,
“Conversely, it has been held that since the accused husband is in police, he will not intimidate his wife.”.
This critique highlighted the flawed assumption that a police officer’s professional role automatically extends into personal conduct, which can undermine genuine grievances of domestic abuse.
The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, addressing a case of alleged marital cruelty involving a police officer. Initially, a magistrate framed charges against the officer and his family members, but this decision overturned by a sessions court, leading the accused to be discharged. The woman involved (complainant) challenged this dismissal in the High Court.
The sessions court based its decision to discharge the accused on the belief that the complainant’s status as a police officer made it unlikely for the alleged offenses to occur. Justice Sharma criticized this reasoning, highlighting its failure to address the specific allegations of dowry demands and torture reported by the complainant.
Justice Sharma stated,
“It is unfortunate that the lower court did not discuss the alleged specific incidents of dowry demand and torture meted out to the complainant.”
The High Court emphasized the need to recognize the unique dynamics of domestic violence cases, especially those involving women in positions of authority.
Justice Sharma elaborated,
“To dismiss the sufferings of women in positions of authority as mere fabrication or deceit would be grave injustice to victims of domestic violence. Such dismissal would imply that no woman, whether a police officer, an officer of administrative services, a judicial officer, or any other empowered woman, could ever be considered a victim.”
Further, the High Court called for an enhancement of gender sensitivity within judicial education, recognizing the complexity of modern legal disputes that might involve multiple gender identities and sexual orientations.
Read Also:Delhi High Court| Approves UCMS Control From Delhi University to Delhi Government
Justice Sharma urged,
“The judicial academies, bearing the crucial responsibility of training judges, must incorporate in their curriculum chapters that address the perils of unrecognized gender and other biases reflected in judgments.”
The Court also requested the Delhi Judicial Academy to incorporate themes of gender equality and cultural diversity into their ongoing judicial education programs.
In this case, Advocate Divjot Singh Bhatia represented the petitioner (complainant), while the State represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar, and Advocate Gautam Das defended the accused.
Read Judgement:[Sanghmitra v State]