- (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangariya whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order dated 28.4.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria whereby the application of non-petitioner nos. 2 and 3 has been allowed and the complaint of the present petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act of 2005 hereinafter) has been rejected qua non-petitioner nos. 2 and 3.
(2.) SHORT facts of the case are that the present petitioner-complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 against her husband Bharat Bhusan and other relatives of her husband including non- petitioner nos. 2 and 3. Thereafter, non-petitioner nos. 2 and 3 submitted an application stating therein that they are females and, therefore, do not fall within the definition of respondent under Section 2(q) of the Act of 2005 and hence the complaint is not maintainable against them. The trial court vide order dated 28.4.2010 allowed the application and rejected the complaint in respect of non-petitioner nos. 2 and 3. The appeal has been filed by the present petitioner which was also dismissed. Hence this revision. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that this controversy has been considered and finally decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sandhya Manoj Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Sankhade and ors. ( (2011) 3 SCC 650) wherein it has been categorically answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as under:- "13. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are unable to sustain the decision, both of the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court, in relation to the interpretation of expression "respondent" in Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. For the sake of reference, Section 2(q) of the abovesaid 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 marriage may also file a complaint against the relative of the husband or the male partner." 14. From the above definition it would be apparent that 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. 17. In our view, both the Sessions Judge and the High Court went wrong in holding otherwise, possibly being influenced by the definition of the expression "respondent" in the main body of Section 2(q) of the aforesaid Act." Looking at the above, this petition is liable to be allowed and hence allowed. The impugned orders dated 25.5.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangaria District Hanumangarh and dated 28.4.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangaria are hereby quashed.;