Baker v. The City of New York
- Sandra baker was alienated from her husband. In 1995 the protective orders issued against him – not to molest, threaten or annoy his wife. Once the wife called the police to take action against her husband who was creating disturbance at the home. When the police arrived at the home and they refused to take any action. According to them there was no good ground to take enquiry.
- Baker went to the domestic relations court and told her story to the officer there. She told the officer to take action against him as soon as possible. She asked the officer if she could wait in his room as she was afraid to stand in the room with her husband. The officer told her to leave and go to the waiting room. Few minutes later, her husband shot and wounded her.
- In baker v. the city of new York (1996), held that it was duty of the city of new York failed to fulfill its obligation to protect their citizen. The court founded that she was a person to be recognized by order of protection as one to be protected by special duty. Here the both police officer and probation officer hadn’t fulfilled their duty and was negligent in performing their duty. So here the baker had the right to take action and sue the officers as they were representatives of city of new York.
HIRAL P. HARSORA V. KUSUM NARTTOMDAS HARSORA (2016) 10 SCC 165
- This judgment is of Supreme Court which changed the definition of Domestic violence act which allowed both the male and female to be respondent. It was noticed as per the matter covered under this case.
- Here the Supreme Court has put down a portion of section 2(a) on the ground it was in disregard to the article 14 of the constitution (right to equality). Here the –phrase the “adult male was deleted and here after it was read that any person, irrespective of gender who is aggrieved and alleging violation of the provisions under this act. So here the petitioners complaint could not be put down on the ground the ground that the act does not make provisions for men and it could only be in respect of women.
- That judgment allowed for change in definition in against whom a complaint could be made, so now it includes females also as respondents. However, it never touched the definition of aggrieved person, who can only be a woman under DV Act.
- “Aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.
THE O.J. SIMPSON CASE
- This is most well known and most debated and discussed domestic violence case in U.S. history. Here his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman were murdered in violent and harsh manner in 1994. O.J. Simpson was a lover of American football hero , who no one could have imagined and thought that he was capable of spousal abuse, which is much less that murder.
- There was broadcasted trial which included 911 tapes documenting Nicole Brown Simpson’s abuse and repeated attempts to get help. This made the country take a closer look at how penetrating and hidden domestic violence it was.
INDRA SHARMA V. VKV SHARMA
- Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan in Supreme Court held that, “live in or marriages like relationship are neither a crime nor a sin”. Though it is fact that is socially unacceptable by the people of the country. The domestic violence act 2005 which defines “ domestic relationship” as a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related through a relationship in a nature of marriage”. The only requirement is that the relationship is of nature of marriage, it must have some inherent or some essential characteristics of the marriage. Though marriage has not been legally recognized.
- Here the court recognized that the relationship between the Adult male and the adult women who unknowingly enters into a relationship with a married adult male.
- The interruption of such relationship by failure to maintain women involved in a relationship amounts was declared to amount to “domestic violence” within the meaning of section 3 of the DV act. The court also recognized the need to protect the women, who are most often, the ones dis-favorably affected by such relationships and asked the parliament to frames laws to protect the women.
JESSICA GONZALES V. USA
In the first case brought by a survivor of domestic violence against the U.S. before an international human rights tribunal, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) found that the United States violated the human rights of Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales) and her children. The decision underscores that the U.S. is failing in its legal obligation to protect women and girls from domestic violence.
In June 1999, Jessica Gonzales’ three young daughters, ages seven, nine and ten, were abducted by her estranged husband and killed after the Colorado police refused to enforce a restraining order against him.
Although Gonzales repeatedly called the police, telling them of her fears for her daughters’ safety, they failed to respond. Hours later, Gonzales’ husband drove his pick-up truck to the police department and opened fire. He was shot dead by the police. The slain bodies of the three girls were subsequently discovered in the back of his pickup truck.
Gonzales filed a lawsuit against the police, but in June 2005 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that she had no Constitutional right to police enforcement of her restraining order. She then filed a petition with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, saying that the inaction of the police and the Supreme Court’s decision violated her human rights.
Status: In a landmark decision, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) found the U.S. government responsible for human rights violations against Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales) and her three deceased children who were victims of domestic violence.
