Nisha Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dt. 03.08.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Jude No. 4, Jaipur City whereby the application of the petitioners for dropping the proceedings against them has been dismissed by the trial Court and the order has been affirmed by the higher Court. Short facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 filed an application under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Womens from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The present petitioners are the respondents in the petition in which the present petitioners filed an application stating therein that their names may be deleted from the array of respondents as they are females and do not fall under the definition of respondent as defined under Sec. 2(q) of the Protection of Womens from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned trial Court dismissed the application and the appellate Court has also dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. This question has been finally decided by the Apex Court in Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors., : 2011(59) BLJR 321 wherein it has been held as under: - 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 here in below: - 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. 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. 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, female 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 aid 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.
(3.) FURTHER contention of the present petitioner is that petitioner no. 1 is senior citizen suffering from paralysis and presently she is bed -ridden, hence she should be allowed not to personally present in the Court. Be that as it may be. These all contentions can be taken by the present petitioner before the trial Court.;