(This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crl.Misc.(P.M.D.V.) No.8/2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC., Holenarasipura.)

Father-in-law and mother-in-law of respondent No.1, being aggrieved by the proceedings in Crl.Misc. (P.W.D.V.) No.8/2008 on the file of J.M.F.C., Holenarasipura, have presented this petition for quashing the said proceeding insofar as they are concerned.

2. Respondent No.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’), interalia seeking an order for protection, maintenance and shared house.

3. 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.

4. 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 No.1.

5. 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.

6. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Smt. Pramila Nesargi for petitioners and learned Counsel Sri. Ravishankar for the respondent No.1.

7. 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.

8. 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 aggriev