JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the learned I/C Session Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST Act), District Kanpur Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 2021 as well as the entire proceeding of the complaint case no. 4880 of 2019 dated 03.07.2019, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2005), P.S. Rail Bazar, District Kanpur Nagar pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (JD)-Ist, Kanpur Nagar.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the complaint filed by the respondent nos. 2 & 3, under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 before the learned Additional Civil Judge (JD)-Ist, Kanpur Nagar are that the marriage of petitioner no. 1 was solemnized with respondent no. 2 on 26.06.2002 and one son was born out of the aforesaid wedlock. Petitioner no. 1 had gone to Sultanate of Oman and during his absence, other petitioners used to harass the respondent no. 2 for dowry and being aggrieved by the harassment/domestic violence, the respondent nos. 2 & 3 have filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 12 of the Act, 2005. It has further been alleged in the complaint that petitioner no. 1 had sent back the respondent no. 2 and her son to India and since then, she was living at her marital house. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 2 stayed with him at Oman for certain period and petitioner had bought jewellery for her and she was well treated, therefore, the allegations made in the complaint are frivolous and false.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per Section 2(q) of the Act, 2005, the word "respondent" has been defined to mean any adult male person and hence no complaint could be filed under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 against the petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4, who are females. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Arun Sharma and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [2015 (10) ADJ 540 (LB)].

4. On the other hand, learned AGA and Sri Ravikant Shukla, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 have submitted that the word "adult male" in Section 2 (q) of the Act, 2005 had been deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. They have relied upon another judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hiral P. Harsora vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora [2016 0 Supreme (SC) 832]: [2016 AIR SC 4774] and the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Jaydipsinh Prabhatsinh Jhala vs. State of Gujarat [(2010) 0 CrLJ 2462], wherein it has been held that only on the ground that the petitioners are female relatives of husband of the petitioner, the proceedings cannot be quashed under the Act, 2005.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and going through the record and the judgments relied by learned counsel for the parties, it is found that the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is not sustainable as the word "adult male" in Section 2(q) of the Act, 2005 has been struck down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Hiral P. Harsora (supra) as far as the word "adult male" is concerned as it does not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The relevant paragraph 46 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-

"We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stands deleted. We may only add that the impugned judgment has ultimately held, in paragraph 27, that the two complaints of 2010, in which the three female respondents were discharged finally, were purported to be revived, despite there being no prayer in Writ Petition No.30