Mukta Gupta, J.

1. 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 and 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-inlaw 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 para "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 Indian Penal Code 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 and Ors. 2011 (3) SCC 650 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 saidRespondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the complaint filed by the Appellant

5. Division Bench of this Court in Varsha Kapoor v. UOI and Ors. 2010 VI AD (Delhi) 472 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 he