AKIL KURESHI, J. Both these petitions arise out of the proceedings under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since, two important and repetitive questions are common in these proceedings, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. First question of considerable importance is the meaning of term 'respondent' as defined in Sec. 2(q) of the Act. In other words, the question is whether a female member of the family can be a respondent in the proceedings under the Act.

2.1. Second question is the nature of proceedings that the Magistrates conduct under the Act and the procedure that has to be adopted for the same. In other words, question is whether the proceedings under the Act are strictly of criminal nature, and that therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in several decisions particularly in case of Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal. reported in 2005 (1) GLR 546 (SC) : 2004 (7) SCC 338, the Magistrate once having issued summons cannot recall the same even if it is found later on that ex-facie no case for proceeding further against all or any of the respondents is made out.

3. Questions arise in the factual background, which are slightly different in each case. We may notice such facts at this stage.

3.1. In Special Criminal Application No. 2068 of 2009, though at the outset, the petition was filed by five petitioners all the original respondents under an order dated 16-12-2009, same was confined to petitioners Nos. 3 and 4 only. Original applicant before the Magistrate is wife of one Jaydeepsinh. The petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the applicant. The applicant earlier filed an application before the Protection Officer on 4-4-2009 complaining of several acts of domestic violence by the respondents. The Protection Officer made a report before the Magistrate concerned, who after taking cognizance of the report, issued summons to all the respondents on 6-4-2009. The petitioners filed application, Exh.4 in the said proceedings and contended that the proceedings are not maintainable. This application was turned down by an order dated 26-6-2009 by the learned Magistrate and Criminal Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 21-72009. The petitioners, have therefore, filed the present petition challenging above orders.

3.2. This petition is argued only on one ground namely that female members of the family could not have been joined as respondents by the applicant in the said proceeding.

4. In Misc. Criminal Application No. 9940 of 2009, the petitioners are the original respondents in an application under Sec. 12(1) of the Act filed by the respondent No.2, who is wife of the petitioner No.1. The petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are the female members of the family. All the petitioners contend that the complaint is not maintainable. In particular, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 contend that as female members of the family, they could not have been joined as respondents in the proceedings under the Act.

5. In this factual background, some of the provisions of the Act may be noticed. Before that, however, one may peruse the Statement of Objects and Reasons for enacting the Act.

6. In Para Nos. 2 and 3 of the said statement, it is stated as under :

"2. 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 Sec. 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety.

3. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under Arts. 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victim of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document