The main legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of 'respondent' under Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, includes a female relative of the husband or the male partner, allowing women to be added as respondents in an application under Section 12 of the Act.

C. NAGAPPAN, J.

The petitioners have sought for a direction to call for the records in the case in C.C.No.356 of 2008, on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Chengalpattu, initiated by the wife of the first petitioner seeking various reliefs under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The respondent herein wife filed application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the first respondent husband, his parents, his sister and other family members. In the present petition seeking to quash the proceedings, one of the grounds raised is that respondents 3, 4 and 6 in the application under Section 12 of the Act are women and Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, would require the respondent to be an adult male person and women could not be added as respondents in the application. When this point was urged, it was found that there was a conflict of views on whether women could be added as respondents in an application under Section 12 of the Act, in the decisions in UMA NARAYANAN V.. PRIYA KRISHNA PRASAD [(2008) 3 MLJ (Crl) 756] and K.KAMALA AND OTHERS V.. M.PARIMALA AND ANOTHER [(2009) 3 MLJ (Crl) 450]. Therefore the matter was directed to be placed before the Honourable Chief Justice for appropriate direction and accordingly this Division Bench heard the matter.

2. We heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor of the State.

3. Besides the decisions of this Court expressing divergent views leading to Reference, the decision of a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in AFZALUNNISA BEGUM & ETC. V. STATE OF A. P. & ANR. (2009 CRL. L. J. 4191) and the following decisions rendered by learned single Judge of various High Courts on the subject matter were brought to our notice.

"(1) AJAY KANT AND OTHERS VS. SMT.ALKA SHARMA (2008) Cri. L. J. 264) (High Court of Madhya Pradesh)

(2) NAND KISHORE AND ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. (MANU/RH/0636/2008) (High Court of Rajasthan)

(3) REMADEVI VS. STATE OF KERALA (I (2009) DMC 297) (High Court of Kerala)

(4) ARCHANA HEMANT NAIK VS. URMILABEN I. NAIK AND ANOTHER (CDJ 2009 BHC 1960) (High Court at Bombay)."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that 'respondent' defined under Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 will mean only an adult male person and not a woman and the application under Section 12 of the Act seeking for one or more reliefs under the Act is civil in nature and there are only two penal provisions, one under Section 31 of the Act providing penalty for breach of protection order by respondent and other under Section 33 of the Act providing penalty for not discharging duty by Protection Officer and those proceedings can be initiated on complaint and application under Section 12 of the Act is not maintainable as against a woman. His contention is based on the decisions in AJAY KANT'S CASE and UMA NARAYANAN'S CASE (referred to above).

5. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that as per the definition of "respondent" in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it would mean any adult male person, but the provisio to the Section would go to show that an aggrieved wife or a female partner may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner and the term "relative" would include woman also and no restricted meaning can be given to it.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, refers to any "relative" of the husband or the male partner and "relative" mentioned in the proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act cannot be only a "male" relative and can also be a "female" relative of the husband or the male partner as the case may be and w