- (1.) In all the aforesaid six criminal revisions the petitioners, both male and female, against whom relief has been sought for under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, by presenting applications under Section 12 of the said Act, impleading them as respondents, have approached this Court for quashing of the said proceedings now pending before different Courts. In these revisions quashing of the proceedings in question has been sought for on various grounds, however on behalf of the female petitioners, the quashing has been sought for essentially on the ground that no relief under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is available to the aggrieved party against them, who does not come within the definition of respondents as defined in Section 2 (q) of the said Act being the female persons.
(2.) Since in all the criminal revisions at the behest of the female petitioners, quashing was sought for on a common question of law, the same were taken up for hearing together by a single bench of this Court. Before the learned Single Judge in support of prayer for quashing on behalf of the female petitioners reliance have been placed on a judgement of our High Court in the case of Smt. Rina Mukherjee and Anr. v. State of West Bengal and Anr., 2009 4 Crimes(Cal) 180. In the said decisions the learned Single Judge quashed the proceedings under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the female respondents holding that a female does not come within the expression 'respondent' and against her no order under Section 18/19 of the said Act can be made. On the other hand, on behalf of the opposite party, i.e. the aggrieved party at whose behest complaint under Section 12 of the said Act has been filed, relying on a decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Archana Hemant Naik v. Urmilaben I. Naik & Anr., 2010 CrLJ 751, it was urged since proviso to Section 2 (q) of the said Act which defined 'respondent' referred that a complaint seeking relief under the said Act can also be filed against relative of the husband and the male partners, therefore there cannot be any impediment in maintaining a complaint seeking relief under the said Act against a female relative of the husband or the male partner. When considering the rival submissions of the parties and the reasoning advanced in support of their respective submissions the learned Single Judge of our High Court was of the opinion that the issue raised before him needs consideration and referred the matter before the larger Bench that is how the aforesaid revisions have been brought before us.
(3.) During the pendency of the instant reference a similar question arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors., arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2854 of 2010. The Apex Court by its judgement delivered on 31.01.2011 disposed of the aforesaid matter with an authoritative pronouncement and setting all controversies at rests with the following observations; "11. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are unable to sustain the decisions, both 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." 12. 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. 13. 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. 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. 14. 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.";