<p>A Bengaluru man is pursuing a complaint under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act against his estranged wife and in-laws in the Supreme Court.</p>.<p>The Karnataka High Court on April 18, 2017, allowed Mohammed Zakir's plea but within a few days on April 28, Justice Anand Byrareddy on his last working date withdrew it, forcing the petitioner to approach the apex court.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul issued a notice to the wife and others on a special leave petition filed by Zakir.</p>.<p>Appearing in person, Zakir contended that the order passed by the high court was "patently erroneous" in view of the provision of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which stated that no court shall after releasing its signed judgement "alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."</p>.<p>The petitioner, who has hardware business, contended his wife and her relatives had on November 17, 2013, attacked him and decamped with jewellery and cash worth Rs 20 lakh, leaving him penniless. "All their acts were caught on CCTV," he claimed.</p>.<p>Zakir, who subsequently faced dowry harassment complaint by the wife, moved an application before the trial court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act but his plea was dismissed.</p>.<p>He filed a plea before the high court which on April 18, 2017, ordered that "the petitioner's complaint could not have been trashed on the ground that the Domestic Violence Act does not contemplate provision for men and it could only be in respect of women."</p>.<p>The petitioner had relied upon a Supreme Court's ruling in "Hiral P Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora", (2016) that stated any person, whether male or female, aggrieved and alleging the violation of the provisions of the Act could invoke its provisions.</p>.<p>The high court, which asked the trial court to consider Zakir's plea, had recalled its order.</p>
<p>A Bengaluru man is pursuing a complaint under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act against his estranged wife and in-laws in the Supreme Court.</p>.<p>The Karnataka High Court on April 18, 2017, allowed Mohammed Zakir's plea but within a few days on April 28, Justice Anand Byrareddy on his last working date withdrew it, forcing the petitioner to approach the apex court.</p>.<p>A bench of Justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul issued a notice to the wife and others on a special leave petition filed by Zakir.</p>.<p>Appearing in person, Zakir contended that the order passed by the high court was "patently erroneous" in view of the provision of Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code which stated that no court shall after releasing its signed judgement "alter or review the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error."</p>.<p>The petitioner, who has hardware business, contended his wife and her relatives had on November 17, 2013, attacked him and decamped with jewellery and cash worth Rs 20 lakh, leaving him penniless. "All their acts were caught on CCTV," he claimed.</p>.<p>Zakir, who subsequently faced dowry harassment complaint by the wife, moved an application before the trial court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act but his plea was dismissed.</p>.<p>He filed a plea before the high court which on April 18, 2017, ordered that "the petitioner's complaint could not have been trashed on the ground that the Domestic Violence Act does not contemplate provision for men and it could only be in respect of women."</p>.<p>The petitioner had relied upon a Supreme Court's ruling in "Hiral P Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora", (2016) that stated any person, whether male or female, aggrieved and alleging the violation of the provisions of the Act could invoke its provisions.</p>.<p>The high court, which asked the trial court to consider Zakir's plea, had recalled its order.</p>
