Key Points: - The court discusses whether "wife" or "daughter in law" falls within the definition of "respondent" in Section 2(q) of the Act. (!) (!) (!) - It analyzes the proviso to Section 2(q) extending the scope to a relative of the husband or male partner and argues for a broad interpretation to protect all women in a domestic relationship. (!) (!) (!) - It emphasizes that the object of the Act is to protect women from domestic violence broadly, not limited to wives/daughter-in-law, supporting a purposive/beneficial interpretation. (!) (!) (!) - It notes that the definition of "aggrieved person" in Section 2(a) is not confined to wife/daughter-in-law and can include any woman in a domestic relationship who has suffered violence. (!) (!) - It cites that restrictive interpretations against including women like wife/daughter-in-law would undermine the Act’s objectives and constitutional mandate. (!) (!) - The decision ultimately upholds a view that a wife or daughter-in-law can be a "respondent" under Section 2(q). (!) - It records corrections to the final order in the judgment. (!) (!)

How to interpret the definition of "respondent" under Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to include wife or daughter-in-law?

What is the scope of protection under the Act for "aggrieved persons" beyond the wife/daughter-in-law, particularly regarding female relatives of the husband?

What are the constitutional implications of restricting or expanding the class of persons who can file complaints under the Act in relation to Articles 14 and 15?