Back
2011(4) Crimes 548(Del.)
DELHI HIGH COURT
Mukta Gupta, J.
Kusum Lata Sharma —Petitioner
versus
State and Anr. —Respondents
Criminal M.L. No. 725 of 2011 and Criminal M.A. No. 2797 of 2001
Decided on 2.9.2011
Held: Thus, a perusal of Sections 2(a) and 2(f) of the Act shows that any woman who is in a domestic relationship, the said domestic relationship being one between two persons who lived at any point of time together in a shared household related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or family members living as a joint family and alleges that she has been subjected to any domestic violence by the Respondent is entitled to relief under the Act.
The word ‘aggrieved person’ cannot be given a restricted meaning in view of para ‘2’ of the Statement of Objects and Reasons which states that:
“The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety.”
Thus, it is evident that phenomenon which was sought to be addressed was “domestic violence” and not “domestic violence” qua the daughter-in-law or the wife only as contemplated under Section 498A.
As a matter of fact, para ‘4(i)’ clarifies that even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single woman or living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the proposed legislation. A mother who is being mal-treated and harassed by her son would be an “aggrieved person”. If the said harassment is caused through the female relative of the son i.e. his wife, the said female relative will fall within the ambit of the ‘respondent’. This phenomenon of the daughters-in-law harassing their mothers-in-law especially who are dependent is not uncommon in the Indian society.
In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court; para ‘4’ of the Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot be stated to have excluded a female relative of .the male partner of a respondent and thus, a mother-in-law being an “aggrieved person” can file a complaint against the daughter-in-law as a respondent. (Paras 7 to 10)
JUDGMENT
Mukta Gupta, J.—The Petitioner, one of the Respondents in a Complaint Case No.40/2011, PS Hauz Khas, New Delhi titled as Ms. Shakuntala Sharma v. Nagender Vashishtha & Ors., received summons from the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short the ‘Act’) to appear on 8th March, 2011. The Petitioner states that the Complainant/Respondent No.2 is her mother-in-law who is having property dispute with the Petitioner’s husband since 2005 and in order to coerce the Petitioner’s husband to forego his share in the property left behind by Petitioner’s father-in-law, the Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint.
2. It is contended that the object of the Act was for redressal of married women who were subjected to cruelty by their husband or in-laws. The object of the Act clearly states that it does not enable any relative of the husband or the male partner to file a complaint against the wife or the female partner. Thus in a nutshell the contention is that a mother-in-law cannot take recourse to the proceedings under Section 12 of the Act to file a complaint against the daughter-in-law.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the object of the Act and contends that as per paras ‘2’ and ‘4’ of the Statements of Objects & Reasons of the Act, the Act was enacted to address to the phenomena of cruelty inflicted under Section 498A, IPC in its entirety. It is further contended that as per Section 2, the Respondent means any adult male person who is or has been in a relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom any relief has been sought under this Act. The proviso to Section 2(q) which provides that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against a relative or the husband or the male partner does not include a female relative.
4. The issue whether the ‘females’ are included or not in the definition of ‘Respondent’ in Section 2(q) of the Act came up for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors.1, wherein their Lordships held:
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.
15. 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.
16. The Appeal, therefore, succeeds. The judgments and orders, both of the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, dated 15th July, 2009 and the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 5th March, 2010, in Crl. Writ Petition No. 588 of 2009 are set aside. Consequently, the trial Court shall also proceed against the said Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the complaint filed by the Appellant.”
5. Division Bench of this Court in Varsha Kapoor v . UOI & Ors.2 interpreting Section 2(q) of the Act also came to the same conclusion. Thus the issue whether under Section 2(q) of the Act “the female relative” would be inclusive in the definition is no more res integra. The Division Bench held as under:
“12. When we interpret the pro
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
