IMPORTANT POINT:
Term respondents in Section 2(q) of the Act would include female relative of the respondent or male partner.

ORDER

P.R. Shivakumar, J.—The complainant (petitioner) in Crl.M.P.No.1226 of 2009 who preferred complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin, is the petitioner in the present criminal revision case.

2. The complaint of domestic violence was preferred making allegations against respondents 1 to 4 herein, who are respectively the husband, mother-in-law, sister of the husband and the father of the petitioner herself. Besides making allegations against them that they committed acts of domestic violence, for which they were to be prosecuted, the petitioner had also prayed for order of protection under Sections 19(5) and 19(7) of the Act.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate, relying on the order of the learned single Judge of this Court Thiru.Justice K.Mohan Ram) in Uma Narayanan v. Priya Krishna Prasad, (2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 756 held that the complaint/petition under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the female persons was not maintainable and accordingly refused to take the complaint on file against the respondents 2 and 3 herein. By the impugned order, the learned Judicial Magistrate took the petition on file (complaint on file) only against the respondents 1 and 4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present criminal revision case.

Though four persons figured as respondents in criminal revision case, the relief sought for is only against the respondents 2 and 3. They are represented by the counsel.

4. The arguments advanced by Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.B.Anandan, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 are heard. The grounds of revision, impugned order and copy of the complaint are also perused.

5. The challenge to the impugned order is made on a short ground and the scope of this revision is also very limited. The only ground on which the impugned order is challenged by the petitioner is that the Judicial Magistrate has committed an error in holding that a complaint/petition under the Act cannot be maintained against a female. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner took the Court through the judgments in Archana Hemant Naik v. Urmilaben I. Naik, 2009 CDJ 1960 (Bom.); Remadevi v. State of Kerala, 2009 (1) DMC 297 and Nand Kishore v. State of Rajasthan (MANU/RH/0636/2008). However a learned single Judge of this Court (Thiru. Justice K.Mohan Ram) expressed a view that an application under Section 12 of the Act against a woman was not maintainable. Such a view was expressed in Uma Narayanan vs. Priya Krishna Prasad) (2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 756). Perhaps relying on the said view, the learned Judicial Magistrate chose to take the complaint on file against R1 and R4 alone. Division Bench of this Court in R.Nivendran v. Nivashini Mohan @ M.Nivashini in principal Bench (myself was part of the Division Bench). As there were conflicting views expressed by two learned single Judges of this Court in 2008 (3) MLJ (Crl) 756 cited supra and K.Kamala and others vs. M.Parimala and another, (2009 (3) MLJ (Crl) 450 the question was referred to a Division Bench. The Division Bench approved the view expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Afzalunnisa Begum & etc. v. State of A.P., that of Bombay High Court in Archana Hemant Naik v. Urmilaben I.Naik and another 2009 CDJ 1960 (Bom.) and the view of Rajasthan High Court in Nand Kishore v. State of Rajasthan (MANU/RH/0636/2008) and held that the term respondents in Section 2(q) of the Act would include female relative of the respondent or male partner. The Division Bench also referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in U.Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and another (2009(6) SCC 757), wherein the Apex Court held that the statement of objects and reasons of the Act also refers to any ‘relative’ of the husband or