IMPORTANT POINT
Legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

ORDER

I. Mohanty, J.—Heard Mr. N.C. Pati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.

S.K. Acharya, Learned counsel for the opposite party.

2. In this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have sought to challenge the order dated 30.11.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2 of 2010, whereby, the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh has been pleased to reject a petition filed by the present petitioners (Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in the proceeding before the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh) on 21.1.2011 with a prayer for deleting the names of the petitioners from the complaint petition.

3. The essential contention of the petitioners before the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Bargarh was that, both the petitioners being ladies, did not come under the definition of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short “PWDV Act”) Hence, being ladies they ought not to be impleaded as parties in the case as respondents. It was further averred. that respondent Nos.4 and 5 are married and are residing in their in-laws’ house at Chennai and Sambalpur respectively since the date of their marriage and they have no relationship with the petitioner (opposite party herein).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that it has been settled by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the Case of Ajay Kant and others v. Smt. Alka Sharma1 that a proceeding under Section 12 of the P.W.DV Act is maintainable only against those who may be termed as adult persons and not against woman .

5. The learned S.D.J.M. has relied on various other decisions of the Bombay High Court in the case of Archana Hemant Naik v. Urmilaben I, Naik and another2 and well as a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Afzalunnisa Begum & etc. v. State of A.P. and another3 and came to conclude that there is direct allegations against the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 (petitioners herein) and hence the petition dated 21.11.2011 field by respondent Nos. 4 & 5 (petitioners herein) stood rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the pointed issue raised by the petitioners is no longer res integra in view of the unreported judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 31.01.2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2011 in the case of Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the similar situation as being raised by the petitioners herein came to conclude in paragraph 14 & 15 which are quoted hereunder:

“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 than 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.”

7. In consideration of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sou. Sandhya Nanoj Wankhade (supra) I am of the considered view the point raised by the petitioners has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in view of the of the Proviso to Section 2(q) of the PWDV 2005, the complaint against the present petitioners is maintainable. Therefore, the present application being devoid of any merit stands dismissed.

8. On perusing the impugned order, this Court is also of the considered view that the learned S.D.J.M. has dealt with the facts of the case as well discussed the case laws in very appropriate manner and this Court records its appreciation of the effort made by the learned S.D.J.M., in this record.

The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.

Misc. Case No. 3290 of 2011

In view of the order passed today in CRL MC No. 4760 of 2011, this Misc. Case is also dismissed.

Application dismissed.

*******