The husband had initiated proceedings against his wife before Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act which states that an "aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of aggrieved person may present an application to Magistrate". A single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh in its January 23 order while issuing notice to the husband held, "Prima facie it seems in view of Section 2(a), the protection of the Act is not available to a male member of the family, and more particularly the husband". Justice Singh, thereafter stayed the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate till the next date of hearing, listing the matter on February 14. While hearing the plea of a woman seeking quashing of a domestic violence complaint case moved against her by her husband before a magisterial court, the Delhi High Court recently held that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act does not apply to a male member of the family, particularly the husband. A single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh in its January 23 order while issuing notice to the husband held, “Prima facie it seems in view of Section 2(a), the protection of the Act is not available to a male member of the family, and more particularly the husband”. Justice Singh, thereafter stayed the proceedings before the Metropolitan Magistrate till the next date of hearing, listing the matter on February 14. The husband had initiated proceedings against his wife before Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Court, under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act which states that an “aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of aggrieved person may present an application to Magistrate”. It was argued by the woman’s counsel that the husband’s complaint was “totally contrary to the essence of the Act” as the definition of aggrieved person under the Act’s Section 2(a) means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to act of domestic violence by the respondent. The woman’s plea stated that even under IPC Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) only a female person is considered as aggrieved whereas the accused/perpetrator may be male or female, hence gender neutral. The plea states that Metropolitan Magistrate has in an “overzealous exercise of judicial overreach”, without application of mind, by a non-speaking order instituted proceedings against the woman under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is on its face is “untenable in law” as the very title of the Act is self-explanatory that the protection and recourse under the Act is limited to a woman being an aggrieved person.