The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'respondent' and the proviso under Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, allowing the arraignment of female relatives of the husband or male partner in a complaint filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage.

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioners submit that by virtue of the prayers put forth below paragraph 9 of the Petition, they are challenging the proceedings in C.C. No.625/M/2014 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai,and pray for quashing of the proceedings. In the cause title of the Petition, it is indicated that the order dated 8.6.2015 passed below Exhibit 5 in the said proceedings has been subjected to a challenge.

3. The Petitioners have put forth two grounds in this Petition. Firstly, that under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, “the D.V. Act”), a complaint may be considered by the Magistrate and an order can be passed on such application only after the Magistrate takes into consideration any report regarding a domestic incident received by him from the Protection Officer or the Service Provider. Section 2(n) of the D.V. Act defines a “Protection Officer” to mean an officer appointed by the State Government under sub-section (1) of Section 8. Section 2(r) defines a “service provider” meaning an entity registered under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the D.V. Act.

4. The second ground put forth by the Petitioners is that Section 2(q) prohibits the filing of a complaint by an aggrieved person against female members of the family of the husband. In this context, he relies upon the Judgment delivered by this Court (S.B. Shukre, J.) in the matter of Arun Ramkrishna Pawade and others v. Nilima Prakash Pawade and others 2015 (4) B.C.R. (Cri.) 287.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that since the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home in 2004 itself, all the subsequent alleged events narrated in the complaint before the trial Court are a figment of imagination and the complaint based on such allegations cannot be entertained. He further submits that when the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home, there is no question of domestic violence and as such, the complaint filed by the wife will have to be dismissed since several events that have been narrated are post leaving the matrimonial home.

6. The learned counsel also submits that Petitioner No.1's mother, one brother and one sister have been arraigned as accused-respondents in the application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The mother being a female member of the petitioner's family, could not have been impleaded as a respondent and so also his sister. It is, therefore, contended that taking into account the above aspects, this Petition deserves to be allowed and the pending complaint deserves to be dismissed by exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

7. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the wife and son of petitioner No.1, draws my attention to the wedding card and the photographs placed on record which indicates that the petitioner has surreptitiously got married to a person by name Poornima. This has been done despite the fact that the marriage with the 1st wife is still subsisting and the petitioner has not obtained any divorce decree.

8. He further submits that the complaint filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act would indicate that the original respondents have participated in various acts of domestic violence against the original complainant-wife. Specific acts have been narrated and unless these attributes are gone into by the Court below, the wife would not succeed in ensuring that the guilt is proved. He, therefore, submitted that this Petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate that the order dated 8.6.2015 passed below Exhibit 5 by the learned Magistrate, which is mentioned in the cause title of the Petition, is an appealable order and Section 29 of the D.V. Act provides for such an appeal which would normally lie before the Court of Sessions. It is