5. The proceedings, which are sought to be challenged in the present case relate to 'The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which was enacted to provide for a more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

6. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the enactment contains reference to the Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995), wherein domestic violence was acknowledged as a human right issue and serious deterrent to development. The United Nations Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) also recommended that State parties should act to protect women against violence of any kind especially that occurring within the family.
.
.
13. The DV Act has been held to be a beneficial and an affirmative legislation for more effective protection of constitutional rights of women and to ensure that they do not become victims of any kind of domestic violence and while interpreting the provisions of the Act, a sensitive approach towards the rights of women is required to be taken.

14. It would be obligatory on the Court in a given case to scrutinise the facts from all angles so as to examine whether the plea advanced with regard to maintainability is on a sound legal basis or has been raised solely with a view to nullify the grievance of the aggrieved person. The beneficial and the affirmative object of the enactment would be required to be taken into view while dealing with such questions relating to maintainability and a narrow interpretation, which may leave the aggrieved woman in distress, remediless or in a situation of non­adjudication, would have to be eschewed.