Some big problems with DV (domestic violence) LAW in very first reading.
1. Before there was 1 maintenance LAW, then in 2001 125CrPC was modified. So maintenance case are being filed by wife at 2 places, and try to get the maintenance judgment that is higher. With DV LAW people are now fighting 3 maintenance cases; the wife can take the maintenance amount highest in these. This is as expected adding to the multiple proceedings in which parties may already be spending out their time, energy and resources. This is against basic common sense, just because feminists LAW makers at WCD want to give more options to the wife. 2. It is common trick by feminists LAW makers i.e., ministry of women and child development to add the controversial proposals, about which they get opposition not in the main LAW but later as part of Rules. Similar trick is used, 2006 Rules are significantly bad and one sided. Rule 14(6): Asking respondent by LAW to give undertaking that he would refrain from causing such domestic violence as complained by the aggrieved person. This can be done before any counseling begins. This puts the cart before the horse. It proceeds on the assumption that there is no reason to doubt that the respondent has committed or is likely to commit domestic violence. Then the Rule 14(5) says respondent shall not be allowed to plead any counter justification for the alleged act of domestic violence, this is unfair, the LAW prohibits 1 party from saying his point of view, which
