IMPORTANT POINT
If the case is made out under any of the provisions of the Act against any other relatives of the husband, there is no legal bar to make them also as party to the proceedings.

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—The petitioners, who are arraigned as respondents in Cri. Misc. No. 340 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gadag, which was filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), approached this Court seeking quashing of the entire proceedings against them on several grounds.

2. At the time of submitting the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that, the petition is only maintainable against the husband of respondent 1 before the learned Magistrate and the petition is not maintainable against other family members, in view of the definition under Section 2(q) of the Act. Secondly, he contends that, even considering the averments made in the petition filed under Section 12 of the Act, it does not disclose any specific allegation against the other petitioners, except petitioner 1. Therefore, he contends that the petition filed before the Trial Court against these petitioners is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed.

3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents herein submits that, though Section 2(q) defines ‘respondent’ to mean an adult male person, but the Apex Court has enlarged the definition providing authority to the wife even to include the relatives of her husband, if she is really aggrieved by the illegal acts of those relatives of the husband. Secondly, he countered the arguments of the learned Counsel by submitting that there are sufficient pleadings in the petition as to how the petitioners herein have ill-treated, harassed and caused domestic violence against the 1st respondent herein and in fact the relief is claimed against all the petitioners. Therefore he contended that, at the threshold, the petition cannot be quashed and the petitioners in fact have to approach the Trial Curt and file appropriate application showing that there was-no act of domestic violence committed by them against the petitioner therein. Hence he pleads for dismissal of this petition.

4. The order sheet of the Trial Court produced by the petitioners discloses that, after filing of the petition under Section 12 of the Act, the Court has issued notice and the petitioners have also appeared before the Trial Court and they have to file their counter to the petition filed by the respondents herein.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.R. Batra and Another v Smt. Taruna Batra, AIR 2007 SC 1118: (2007)3 SCC 169: (2007)2 SCC (Cri.) 56: 2007 AIR SCW 1088: 2006 (11& 12) SBR 533 . wherein the Apex Court, referring to Sections 17 and 19 of the Act, has held that: ‘There is no law on matrimonial homes in India, but as per available law right to wife can only be as against husband, not against father-in-law, or other relatives or mother-in-law. Section 17 of the Act refers to ‘shared household’. The accommodation i.e., the mother-in-law’s house does not become a ‘shared household’ only because applicant-wife had shared that house with her husband earlier. For that it has to be a house owned or taken on rent by husband or a house which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member.

This decision, in fact, does not say anything about the definition of Section 2(q) of the Act. It only refers to the ‘shared house’. In this decision also it is clear that, if the husband and the other members are in the joint family house, then that can be called as ‘shared house’ and other relatives of husband, in fact, can also be made as parties to restrain them from committing any domestic violence by throwing out the wife from the shared house. Therefore, the above decision is not in straightjacket manner applicable to the present case.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondents has cited a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sou. Sa