BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. The petitioners - Harsukhbhai Rajpara and Gopalbhai Rajpara are the father-in-law and the brother-in-law of the original complainant, respondent no. 2 herein. They have approached this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 Sangitaben alias Shrutiben Rajpara under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. The original complainant - respondent no. 2 has filed a complaint under the Act against her husband Manishkumar Rajpara who is arraigned as accused no. 1 whereas the present applicants are arraigned as accused nos. 2 and 3. The complaint is annexed as Annexure 'A' to the petition. Evidently, the complaint is in a format as prescribed under the Act. According to the complainant Sangitaben, she married Manishkumar, son of applicant no. 1 in 1996. As a result of matrimonial disputes that arose between the two, various proceedings have been filed inter se between Manishkumar and Sangita, which need not be referred to herein.

2.1 Relevant for our purpose is the contention raised by the applicants no. 1 and 2 who are the father-in-law and brother-in-law respectively of Sangita that both of them are residing separately from the couple and therefore there is no "Domestic Relationship" between the applicants and Sangitaben, to invoke the provisions of the Act. Therefore, according to the applicants, proceedings initiated under the Act being Misc. Application No. 36 of 2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondal be quashed. In support of the fact that there is no "domestic relationship" between the applicants and the complainant and her husband, a deed of separation is annexed at Annexure 'E' to the petition by the applicants to show that as far as back in the year 1999, the applicants had separated from the couple.

3. At the outset, attention was drawn by Mr. D.J. Bhatt, learned advocate for the applicants that a contention was raised by him that since the Act came into force in October 2006, it could not have retrospective effect and therefore the complaint under the Act was not maintainable. However, that point has not been pressed by Mr. Bhatt in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot reported in 2012(3) SCC 183 wherein the Apex Court has held that application by a woman who had shared a household in pas but was no longer residing with her husband or who was subjected to any act of domestic violence prior to coming into force of the Act was maintainable.

3.1 Mr. D.J. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the applicants has drawn my attention to the definition of "Domestic Relationship" as defined under section 2(f) of the Act. According to Mr. Bhatt, domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household. It is the case of the applicants that they as father-in-law and brother-in-law have never shared a household since the marriage of the son of applicant no. 1 to the complainant Sangitaben. Evidently, therefore, according to Mr. Bhatt they do not fall within the definition of "Domestic Relationship" as defined under section 2(f) of the Act.

4. Learned advocate Mr. D.D. Nanavaty has not been in a position to dispute the fact that after the marriage between Manishkumar and the complainant Sangitaben, the applicants have not had a domestic relationship as defined under section 2(f) of the Act.

5. It has to be borne in mind that "respondent" as per section 2 (q) of the Act means any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. Therefore, to join a person as respondent in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, there should be a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. To understand the same, it would be appropriate to have a look at the definition of "domestic relations