1. Father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent 1, being aggrieved by the proceedings in Cri. Misc. (P.W.D.V) No. 8 of 2008 on the file of J.M.F.C, Holenarasipura, have presented this petition for quashing the said proceedings insofar as they are concerned.
2. Respondent 1-the daughter-in-law has filed a complaint under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, ‘the Act’) read with Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (in short referred to as ‘the Rules’), inter alia seeking an order for protection, maintenance and shared house. Daughter-in-law alleged that, the petitioners and the husband have caused domestic violence, and she being an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act, being in domestic relation with the petitioners and her husband in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act and the petitioners and her husband being the respondents within the meaning of Section 2(q) of the Act, is entitled to the relief sought for.
3. Learned Magistrate led by the allegation in the complaint has ordered for issue of summons to the petitioners as well as the husband of respondent 1.
4. Matter being amongst the family members, an effort was made for settlement by referring the matter to the Lok Adalat. However, the Lok Adalat was not successful to resolve the dispute, hence, referred the matter back to the learned Magistrate. At this stage, both father-in-law and mother-in-law are before this Court in this criminal petition.
5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Smt. Pramila Nesargi for petitioners and learned Counsel Sri Ravishankar for the respondent 1.
6. Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Senior Counsel, unfolded her argument by submitting that, the provisions of the Act and the Rules are not applicable to the in-laws or the members of the family except the husband, and no relief could be granted to the aggrieved person against the in-laws and other members of the family. In this regard, she relied on the definition of “aggrieved person” under Section 2, clause (a) of the Act and submitted that, “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. She also referred to the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Act and submitted that, “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living, together as a joint family. She also referred to the definition of “respondent” under Section 2(q) of the Act and submitted that, “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 the provisions of the Act She further referred to the proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act and submitted that, an aggrieved, wife or woman 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.
7. Learned Senior Counsel in support of her contention relied on the provisions of Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act and submitted that, the Act is envisaged to protect the women from domestic violence and to grant such relief as provided under the Act. The relief that could be granted in favour of the aggrieved person is monetary benefit, maintenance, shared house, protection, compensation and custody, etc. All these reliefs could only be claimed against the adult male member with whom the aggrieved person has a domestic relationship. By reading of provisions of the Act, it only suggests that the Court could only pass an order against the respondent, who is male adult member having domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and not against any other person.
8. In this regard, she relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Criminal Original Petition No. 9277 of 2008 and M.P Nos. 1 and 3 of 2008, decided on 1-8-2008 and submitted that, the Madras High Court while considering the definition of “respondent” and “shared household” has held that, another woman in the family against whom the domestic violence is alleged cannot become respondent, as definition of respondent does' not include woman nor any relief could be granted against a woman. She also relied on an unreported decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5837 of 2006, dated 15-12-2006 and submitted that, the Apex Court while considering the grant of relief on shared household has observed that, a property of mother-in-law cannot be called as “shared household”. In case of joint family property to which the respondent is a member, in such property the aggrieved person gets the household right along with other female members. She also submitted that the definition of “respondent” only mentions adult male member is or has in domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, hence, it is only a male member and not all male members and submitted that, the proceedings in this case as against the father-in-law and mother-in-law are misconceived.
9. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that, the definition of “respondent” under Section 2(q) read with proviso includes relatives of the husband or the male partner. Fact that the relatives also come within the definition of “respondent”, the petition is well in accordance with the provisions of the Act and submitted that, father-in-law and mother-in-law being the relatives of the husband, they also come within the definition of “respondent” and further submitted that, the definition of “shared household” includes household, which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. Referring the definitions of “respondent” under Section 2(q) and “shared household” under Section 2(s), learned Counsel submitted that, combined reading of these provisions and reference to joint family and the relatives therein, would empathetically make it clear that the respondent means not only the adult male member, but also the relatives of the husband or male partner of the aggrieved person and as such, the petition is properly filed and the proceedings before the learned Magistrate do not call for interference.
10. The points that arise for consideration in this petition are:
(1) Against whom the complaint under the provisions of the Act could be filed?
(2) Whether the definition of “respondent” under Section 2(q) of the Act includes every members of the family of husband or male partner of the aggrieved person, who is in domestic relationship with him?
11. In view of the phenomenon of domestic violence widely prevalent and remained largely invisible in the public domain and as a result of which the woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, which is an offence in terms of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 had not addressed the said phenomenon in its entirety. Considering the provisions of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India and right to equality before law, the Parliament intended to protect the women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent occurrence of domestic violence in the society, introduced a Bill to protect women, who is or has been in domestic relationship with abuser, who were living together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption in addition to relationship with family members living together as a joint family, who are also included, even woman, who is a sister, widow, mother, single woman living with an abuser is entitled for legal protection under the Act, with this object in mind, the Parliament enacted the legislation called “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act”.
12. “Aggrieved person” is defined under Section 2, clause (a) of the Act, which reads as under:
“2. (a) “Aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent”.
13. Reading of the definition of “aggrieved person” indicates that, a woman, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who has been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. In order to seek protection under the provisions of the Act, the aggrieved person must be a woman and she is or has been in domestic relationship with the respondent and has been subjected to domestic violence. “Domestic relationship” is defined under Section 2, clause (f) of the Act, which reads as under:
“2. (f) “Domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage adoption or are family members living together as a joint family”.
14. Domestic relationship requires a relationship between two persons and who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or members of the family living together as a joint family. Under this definition, a reference is made only to the relationship between two persons and such relationship may be any one of the relationship mentioned therein.
15. Definition of “respondent” is defined under Section 2, clause (q) of the Act. “Respondent” means, any adult male person who is, or has been, Page: 199in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the 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.
16. Respondent means, an adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. Proviso to the definition of respondent permits the aggrieved person, who is wife or living in relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or a male partner. Proviso is in the nature of option to the aggrieved person to file complaint against the relative of husband or male partner with whom she has a domestic relationship. Reading of the proviso shows, it is an exception to the definition of respondent, and is confined only to the relative of husband or male partner and not others.
17. Definition of “aggrieved person” requires that woman must be in domestic relationship with respondent and the domestic relationship requires that, two persons, who live or lived together in a shared household. In this context, it is useful to refer to the definition of “shared household” which reads as under:
“2. (s) “Shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household”.
18. Shared household is a household in which an aggrieved person lives or lived at any stage in a domestic relationship either singly or with respondent or by virtue of relation mentioned therein. It may be owned or tenanted either jointly or by aggrieved person or by respondent over which they have right, title, interest or equity. In addition to this, shared household also includes joint family shared household of which the respondent is a member of the joint family. Reading of this definition indicates that, if aggrieved person or respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity in respect of shared household where aggrieved person had lived or is living, she can make a claim for shared household.
19. A careful reading of these definitions, in their plain meaning, shows that the aggrieved person must be woman and must be in domestic relationship with respondent. Insofar as aggrieved person as defined shows her domestic relationship only with the respondent. Page: 200Definition of ‘respondent’ also shows that, any adult male person, who is or has been in domestic relationship with aggrieved person. The definition of ‘domestic relationship’ also recognises the relationship only between two persons.
20. Combined reading of the three definitions viz., aggrieved person, domestic relationship and respondent, show that, a woman may make complaint of domestic violence against adult male with whom she is or has been in domestic relationship. A plain meaning of these definitions' does not include any other person. However, the definition of ‘respondent’ has a proviso, which enables the aggrieved person to file complaint against the relative of her husband or her male partner. The word. ‘relative’ is not defined under the Act. The relative in general terms means any person related by blood marriage or adoption. This proviso is an option given to the aggrieved person to file complaint against relative of the male partner or her husband in addition to the respondent. The relative of husband or male partner of aggrieved person includes all male and female relative.
21. Reading of definition of “aggrieved person”, necessarily requires that, aggrieved person is or has been in domestic relationship with the respondent. Domestic relationship includes not only the relationship of husband and wife but also relationship by consanguinity, relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or family members. However, the definition of shared household requires a domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent, and does not refer to any other relationship.
22. In the light of these definitions, it is necessary to know, as to, against whom the aggrieved person may file complaint under the provisions of the Act. Section 2(q) refers to an adult male person as a respondent, it does not refer to any relationship. However, to make him liable, he must be in domestic relationship in terms of Section 2(f) of the Act. If these definitions read together and if they are constructed harmoniously, certainly it does not include every person of the family as a respondent, it is only the respondent with whom the aggrieved person is or has been in domestic relationship and against whom, the aggrieved person may seek relief. If the domestic relationship is with the husband or a partner, the aggrieved person, who is subjected to domestic violence by such person, may seek relief of protection, monetary benefit, compensation, shared household, etc.
23. The definition of “domestic relationship” started with the words “relationship between two persons”. If the domestic relationship Confines, to the relationship between two persons in whatever capacity as mentioned under Section 2(f) and the meaning of the aggrieved person only refers to domestic relationship with respondent, thereby she can complain of domestic violence only against the respondent (adult male member).
24. However, the proviso to the definition of respondent permits the aggrieved person to file a complaint against the relative of her husband or her male partner. This proviso is in the nature of an option given to the, aggrieved person. Whether in the light of such exception the aggrieved person can file complaint against all or any of the relative of the husband or male partner?
25. To know the intention of the legislation, it is better to refer to the other provisions of the Act and also the object of the Act. The Act is intended to protect the interest of woman in case of domestic violence Now the question is as to whether woman, who is aggrieved person, can also file a complaint under the provisions of the Act for any of the relief against another woman? No doubt, plain reading of definition of “respondent” excludes the woman and attracts only such adult male person, who is in domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and not any other person, however, the proviso permits the aggrieved person to file complaint against relative of her husband or partner. Reading of the definitions of ‘aggrieved person’, ‘domestic relationship’, ‘respondent’, and the proviso to definition of respondent certainly creates a doubt as to whether, the aggrieved person irrespective of any domestic, relationship with the relative of her husband or male partner, she may file complaint?
26. It is well-settled that all statutory definitions must be read subject to qualification variously expressed in the definition clauses/which create them and it may be noted that even where the definition is exhaustive inasmuch as the word defined is said to mean a certain thing, it is possible for the word to have a somewhat different meaning in different sections of the Act depending upon the subject or context.
27. In this context, the reference to the other provision is necessary.
28. Section 3 of the Act defines the ‘domestic violence’. This provision only refers to the Act, omission or commission or conduct, of respondent., It does not refer to the relative or any other person. Can it be said that the domestic violence between aggrieved person and respondent alone or it also includes the relative?
29. Chapter IV of the Act deals with procedure for obtaining orders of reliefs. Section provides for filing an application, such application can either be filed by aggrieved person or on her behalf. Section 12(2) of the Act provides for relief of grant of compensation from respondent. Section 13 of the Act deals with service of notice on the respondent and on any other person, in this provision, it includes notice other than the respondent.
30. However, Section 17 of the Act, which deals with right to reside in shared household, recognises the right of a woman, who is in domestic relationship, shall have fight to reside in a shared household. This provision does not limit to the domestic relationship with the respondent, but it confers right on every woman in domestic relationship to reside in the shared household. Her relationship may be by Page: 202consanguinity, marriage or in the nature of marriage, adoption or family member living together as joint family. Thus, it protects the right of woman to the shared household. But when it comes to the protection under Section 18 of the Act, it only provides for passing of prohibitory order against respondent only.
31. However, under Section 19 of the Act, the Magistrate while disposing of the application under Section 12(1) of the Act may pass an order for residence in favour of aggrieved person. Except provisions of Section 19(1)(c) of the Act, under all other clauses of Section 19(1) of the Act, orders can be passed against respondent, but under section 19(1)(c) of the Act, the Magistrate can pass order of restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of shared household in which aggrieved person resides. But proviso to Section 19(1) prohibits the Magistrate from passing any order for removal of woman from shared household
32. Section 20 of the Act deals with monetary reliefs. Magistrate may order for monetary relief against respondent. Even the relief to be granted under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act provides only against respondent and not any other person. Hence, if the meaning of the word ‘respondent’ as defined under the Act, in the context of other definitions and the provisions of the Act, the definition of respondent or the proviso to the same does not include female or woman, even the right given to the aggrieved person to file complaint in terms of proviso to the definition of respondent does not include the woman relative, as otherwise it would defeat the very object of the Act.
33. Act is envisaged mainly with intention to protect the women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society, however, the definition of ‘aggrieved person’ only recognises a woman in domestic relationship with the respondent. Respondent as defined under Section 2, clause (q) of the Act refers to an adult male person, who is in domestic relationship with aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought a relief. Both the provisions recognise the relationship of adult male with a woman does not refer to any other relationship. No doubt, domestic relationship includes relation by consanguinity, marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. When it comes to the question of aggrieved person, it does not recognise the relation of woman with any other person, except with the respondent. Such a relationship may be by adoption or being a member of family living together as a joint family. Domestic relationship also identifies a relationship between two persons.
34. In the light of these definitions and the other provisions of the Act except provisions of Sections 17 and 19 of the Act, in all other cases, the relief that could be granted in favour of aggrieved person is only against the respondent. Respondent as defined is only the male member. No doubt, the definition of the respondent has a proviso. Proviso confers an Page: 203option on the aggrieved person to file complaint against the relative. Word ‘relative’ has not been referred to in any of the provisions of the Act except Section 19, sub-section (1), clause (c) of the Act wherein the Court has power to restrain respondent or any of his relatives from entering in any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides. Reading of Section 19, sub-section (1), clause (c) and proviso to Section 19, sub-section (1) which prohibits of passing any order against a woman under Section 19(1)(b), this provision deals with issue of direction to remove the respondent from the shared household, but excludes woman by virtue of proviso. Section 17 of the Act deals with the right to reside in the shared household and under Section 17 of the Act, every woman, who is in domestic relationship, has a right to reside in shared household. A harmonious construction of these provisions shows that, woman is protected from being removed from the shared household, she has right to reside and other reliefs that could be granted under Sections 18, 20, 21 and 22 of the Act are all directed only against the respondent, which means only adult male member in domestic relationship with aggrieved person and not others. Hence, from the interpretation of provisions of the Act, as they are and understanding the plain meaning of the provisions only show that, the provisions do not provide any right to the aggrieved person to file complaint against another woman. In the light of the above, both the points answered accordingly.
35. Hence, word appearing in the proviso to definition of ‘respondent’ has to be understood to mean only male relative of the husband or male partner of the aggrieved person with whom she is in domestic relationship. In the light of the above discussion, I hold that:
(i) The definition of the word ‘respondent’ under Section 2(q) of the Act does not include woman;
(ii) The word relative appearing in the proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act only means other than woman relative of the husband or male partner of the aggrieved person;
(iii) The definition of ‘respondent’ means only adult male member, who is or has been in domestic relationship with aggrieved person and not all adult male members.
36. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The proceedings in Cri. Misc. (P.W.D.V) No. 8 of 2008 on the file of J.M.F.C, Holenarasipura insofar as petitioner 2 is concerned, stand quashed.
Comments