The fact that the defendant is not associated with Caroline in any way is immaterial, from the point of view of her request for the Court's protection, although it has been seen that the law has a distinctly favourable disposition towards married couples in such instances of grant of injunctions orders since a greater degree of clarity is available in such relationships as compared with lesbianism, homosexuality or
These actions of Gary cannot be termed as physical violence or even threats of violence, but, nevertheless it does constitute molestation, even in the absence of violent acts, or deemed violent actions. In Johnson -v- Walton (1990) FLR 568, the Court ruled that "any conduct which could properly be regarded as such a degree of harassment, as to cause for the intervention of the Court " could be termed as acts of harassment. In this case, soon as the relationship between Miss W and Mr. J ended, pictures of Miss W in a semi-nude state appeared in the press. According to Miss. W, she was neither aware of, or had agreed to such an act. Nobody, except Mr. J, on the basis of their past liaison, could have gained access to commit such an act. (The Family Law Act 1996. 2006). Again,
In the decided case of Vaughan v Vaughan, (1973) 3 All ER 449, the ex-husband used to constantly pester his ex-wife, through calls and visits at her residence and place of work. This created a fear psychosis in the mind of the ex-wife and undermined her health. It was held, that although threats or actual physical violence was absent, the ex-husband's conduct constituted molestation and invoked the Court's intervention. (The Family Law Act 1996. 2006).
Facts to be established:
The facts that need to be established to determine the case of molestation:
1. Whether one act is sufficient or should there be a series of actions. It need not be necessary that the acts of molestation need to be repetitive in nature to be an offence
2. Next, the timeframe, during which the molestation was carried out, which the Courts would consider as being reasonable for constituting it as such. In the decided case, Horner v Horner(1982) 2 All ER 495, then Court opined that 'Molesting' covered harassment falling short of violence or threatened violence, which nevertheless called "for the court's intervention" (Court of Appeal. 1993).
2. The Courts have to determine the level of risk to be attached to such actions, on the part of Gary. In this case, it is seen that, although there has been no physical assaults, or acts of mental or physical violence on the part of Gary, there is every possibility that this may occur in future: 1.Because his overtures have been rejected 2. He has been ejected from the house. 3. Caroline has abruptly severed all contacts with him.
Recent Case laws on DVMPA 1976.
It is seen in the case of McCann v.Wright (1995) FLR 579, a cohabitant moves out of the house following domestic violence to live with her mother, following which she opted for a non-molestation order against the defendant .The jury did not find it difficult to invoke Section 2(2) of the DVMPA 1976 although later jurist in the case of Duo v. Osborne (1992) 2 FLR 425 and Pidduck v. Molloy (1992) 2 FLR 202 said that the scope of Section 2 be extended to include the aspects of cohabitation and ex-spouses. (Lockton P. 36 -37).
Apparently, adjudicatory powers