IMPORTANT POINT
A daughter-in-law cannot arraign lover/paramour of her mother-in-law as a co-respondent in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging domestic violence on the premise that they are in a ‘domestic relationship’.

A. Hariprasad, J.—The startling legal question that crops up for determination in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C is the following :

Can a daughter-in-law arraign lover/paramour of her mother-in-law as a co-respondent in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘the Act’) alleging domestic violence on the premise that they are in a ‘domestic relationship’?

2. Relevant facts in brief :

Petitioner herein is the second respondent before the trial court. First respondent before the trial court is the second respondent in this petition. The petitioner before the court below is the first respondent in this proceedings.

3. For convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to in their respective ranks in the proceedings before the trial court. First respondent’s son deceased Radhakrishnan married the petitioner on 16-01-2005. In Annexure 1 petition, the petitioner has levelled lot of allegations about the character and conduct of the first respondent. The petitioner has gone to the extent of alleging that the first respondent is leading a amoral life; indulging in a promiscuous life and engaging in illicit distillation. On account of this infamous life of the first respondent, her husband and the husband of the petitioner had committed suicide. It is the allegation that after appropriating her gold ornaments and cash, the first respondent and her lover, the second respondent, drove the petitioner out of the shared household. With this averments she sought reliefs against both the respondents.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the second respondent (petitioner herein) submitted that there is no legal basis for impleading him in the proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the petition is not maintainable. Going by the averments in Annexure 1 application, there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent and therefore she cannot allege that the second respondent has committed any act falling within the definition of “domestic violence” in Section 3 of the Act.

6. For appreciating these contentions, it is apposite to consider some definitions in the Act. ‘Aggrieved person’ is defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. It reads as follows :

“2(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;”

7. On a reading of the definition, it can be seen that the aggrieved person can only be a female. It is also evident that such a woman must be or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent. Further, she must make an allegation that she has been subjected to any act of domestic violence, defined in Section 3 of the Act, by the respondent. It is amply clear that the definition of ‘aggrieved person’ does not restrict itself to a woman in her capacity as wife alone. It is essential that the aggrieved person must be a woman, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who makes a complaint of domestic violence.

8. Now, we shall look into the definition of ‘Domestic Relationship’ of Section 2(f) of the Act. It reads as follows :

“2(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;”

9. As it is clear from the definition, the ‘domestic relationship’ means a relationship between two persons related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or as family members living together as a joint family. It is also essential that the two persons must live or at any point of time lived togeth