b) c) S. 12 (1)(f) and (g) and s. 12 (2) clarify that financial support and maintenance orders under the DV Act are a parallel remedy to claims under the Maintenance Act of 1999. Since the Magistrate’s Courts deal with those procedures too, it should be possible to make a link, and ensure that access to this relief will be of immediate practical relevance, and without delay. There is a strong case for reviewing these procedures on granting interim orders, protection orders and supplementary orders in light of practical experience, to ensure that Orders under S. 11 and 12 are not solely at the discretion of judges. Making some Orders indeed seem essential. (e.g. S. 12 (1) (e) monitoring the observance of the Orders and reporting to court). An amendment to the Act can be introduced, requiring the judge to give reasons why he is not making an order. Guidelines in this regard set by the Supreme Court can also be useful, as the concept of unrestricted judicial discretion to make orders needs review. Supplementary orders can be made for counseling and rehabilitation therapy. However the range of orders in S. 11 and 12 suggest that the court is required to respond proactively to the situation of DV rather than “mediate” or “make a settlement” to prevent the violence. A lack of clarity in regard to the magistrate’s role creates a danger that the judge may not make any orders besides a supplementary order for counseling under S. 12 (1)(c). Similarly S. 11 (2) of the Act on factors that should be considered in making Interim Protection or Protection Orders (need for “the accommodating of the aggrieved person or her children (the applicant) and the children of the respondent”(S. 11 (2)(a)) and “any hardship to the respondent or any other person.” (S. 11 (2) (b)) are confusing and difficult to interpret, and should be repealed. These provisions can result in a woman being denied the relief available under the Act for GBV. iii) S. 20 restricts printing or publishing any matters relevant to these cases of DV and makes such conduct a punishable offence. These provisions should be reviewed in light of experience in litigation under the Act. Is publicity helpful in giving community recognition to GBV, and promoting zero tolerance? What is the balance between creating community awareness, respecting privacy, and victim’s concern to keep DV a “hidden” phenomenon? These issues should be debated, and considered in a revisiting of the restriction. iv) There is no reference to monitoring in this Act except for S. 12 (1)(e) which gives a direction to make a supplementary order in this regard. “Protection officers” should be appointed, and this is recognized in the area of child protection to prevent child abuse. Can such a cadre of official be helpful for strengthening implementation of protection orders? Responsible Agencies : Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Women’s Affairs, NCPA, Ministry of Health, Family Health Bureau and professional institutions on Forensic Medicine. C. The Constitution The provisions on treaty ratification should be clarified in Constitutional reform. Art 13 (6) should be reviewed and redrafted so that the application of customary international law is clarified, especially in the area of criminal justice. 54 COMPENDIUM ON LAW, GENDER BASED VIOLENCE AND REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS