The Act allows a wife to file for protection against her husband's relatives independent of the husband’s involvement, reflecting its broader intent to protect women from domestic violence.

ORDER

Sunil Thomas,J.

This revision arises from an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Thrissur in Crl.Appeal No.752/2010 in a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (Act 43 of 2005) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short).

2. A married woman sought protection order under Section 12 of the Act against her mother-in-law and sister-in- law. It was alleged that the above persons had subjected her to domestic violence at the matrimonial home. The husband of the above married woman was in Gulf country and apparently she had no grievance against the husband. The trial court granted the protection order under the Act, which was CRRP No.328/2013 2 confirmed in appeal preferred at the instance of the mother-in-

law. This is challenged in this revision by the mother-in-law.

3. One of the ground of challenge raised specifically in the revision was that without the husband of the married woman in the party array, an application under the Act was not maintainable and no relief can be granted. The learned single Judge, before whom the matter came up for hearing, noted the decision of this Court inBismi Sainudheen v. P.K.Nabeesa Beevi and Others( 2013(4) KLT 377 ). After referring to the relevant provisions involved in the matter, the learned single Judge doubted the ratio laid down in the above case and expressed the view that the proviso to Section 2 (a) can only mean that, when the husband, to whom only the wife is related by marriage, is a respondent, his relatives, male or female also may be made respondents in the case. Hence, the learned single Judge thought it fit to refer the matter to the Division Bench for consideration. The question that was formulated for consideration is “whether a petition filed by a wife against her husband's relatives alone without making him a co-

CRRP No.328/2013 3 respondent is maintainable”?

The matter is thus placed before this Bench for consideration.

4. Heard both sides and examined the records.

5. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act 43 of

2005 declares that domestic violence is a human rights issue and a serious deterrent to development. Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995) have acknowledged it. The United Nations Committee on Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman (CEDAW) in its General Recommendation No. XII (1989) has recommended that the State parties should act to protect women against violence of any kind, especially that occurring within the family. Parliament was of the view that the phenomenon of domestic violence in India was widely prevalent, but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. It was felt that the civil law did not address this phenomenon in its entirety. Where a woman was subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives it was an offence under Section 498A of IPC. There was no remedy in the civil law for the protection of the women from being victims of domestic violence. Hence, the CRRP No.328/2013 4 Act was brought into force in accordance with the above object and keeping in view the rights guaranteed under Articles,14,15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law,which was intended to protect the women from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society.

6. Evidently, the Act was intended to ensure effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution, who were victims of violence of any kind, occurring within the family and to deal with matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. This being the object of the statute, evidently, the statute cover a large group of the society with rights conferred not only to the aggrieved wife in relation to her dispute with the husband, but to cover any type of violence against woman that occurs in any domestic relationship.

7. To answer the question referred to this Bench, the relevant provi