Sunday, 14 August 2016
Whether female relatives of husband or male partner can be proceeded under domestic violence Act?
Section 2(q) while passing its order, I find that the effect of the
proviso to Section 2(q) was really not canvassed before the Court. I
am, ttarget='_blank' rel='nofollow' hrefore, dealing with the proviso in this Judgment, considering
the submissions of the Petitioners, which have been opposed by
Respondent No.1.
14. Section 2(q) reads as under :-
“2(q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is,
or has been, in a domestic relationship with the
aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved
person has sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in
a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a
complaint against a relative of the husband or the male
partner;”
15. It is, therefore, apparent that though Section 2(q)
indicates that the “respondent” would mean any adult male
person in connection with domestic relationship with the
aggrieved person, the proviso indicates that the aggrieved wife
or female, living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage,
may also arraign in a complaint, a relative of the husband or the
male partner. Since, the 2005 Act is aimed at protecting
women against domestic violence, the submissions of the
petitioners, if are accepted, would create an insulation to the
female members of the husband's family who may go
unpunished for acts amounting to domestic violence.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sandhya
Manoj Wankhade vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Anr. (2011) 3
SCC 650 has dealt with the issue as to whether Section 2(q) and the
proviso thereunder, read with Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the
2005 Act, would restrict the meaning of the term “respondent” only
to the extent of the husband or male partner or only male members of
the family or male relatives..
:
17. Paragraph Nos. 13 to 18 of the Sandhya Judgment
(supra) read as under :-
“13. Having carefully considered the submissions made
on behalf of the respective parties, we are unable to
sustain the decisions, both of the learned Sessions Judge
as also the High Court, in relation to the interpretation of
the expression "respondent" in Section 2(q) of the
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. For the sake of reference,
Section 2(q) of the above-said Act is extracted
hereinbelow :-
"2(q). "respondent" means any adult male person who is,
or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved
person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought
any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a
relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a
complaint against a relative of the husband or the male
partner."
14. From the above definition it would be apparent that
although Section 2(q) defines a respondent to mean any
adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic
relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso
widens the scope of the said definition by including a
relative of the husband or male partner within the scope
of a complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife
or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a
marriage.
15. It is true that the expression "female" has not been
used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other
hand, if the Legislature intended to exclude females from
the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an
aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically
excluded, instead of it being provided in the proviso that a
complaint could also be filed against a relative of the
husband or the male partner.
16. No restrictive meaning has been given to the
expression "relative", nor has the said expression been
specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005,
to make it specific to males only. In such circumstances,
it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude
female relatives of the husband or male partner from the
ambit of a complaint that can be made under the
provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3069 OF 2015
Mr. Prashant Pandit Salve & Ors. ... Petitioners
vs.
Mrs. Suvarna Prashant Salve & Ors. ... Respondents
CORAM: RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, J.
DATE : 11th July, 2016.
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/08/whether-female-relatives-of-husband-or.html
