The definition of 'respondent' under the Domestic Violence Act extends liability for monetary relief beyond the husband, allowing remedies from various relatives when domestic violence is alleged.

1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. This petition under S.482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 30/04/2013 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Cr. A. No. 268/2012 by which order dated 30/07/2012 passed by J.M.F.C., Bhind, in M. Cr. C. No. 10/2012 has been set aside and the application filed by respondent under S.12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has been allowed.

3. The facts necessary for the disposal of the present application in short are that an application under S.12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was filed by the respondent against the applicants and her father - in - law. Her case was that She is married to the applicant No. 2 and at the time of marriage, her father had given dowry as per his financial capacity. However, immediately after marriage, herin - laws started harassing and treating her with cruelty for want of dowry. They started demanding Rs.3,000 per month to meet the expenses, as the husband of the respondent was not earning. For sometime, her father gave Rs.2,000 per month but the demand of herin - laws increased day - by - day and her mother - in - law and the husband used to beat her by fists and blows after locking her in a room. They started demanding Rs.200000 for procuring service for applicant No. 2 and when the respondent clarified that her father is not in a position to fulfill his demand, then he started saying that he would leave the respondent only when her younger sister is married to him. On 20/05/2010, the applicant No. 2 under the influence of liquor badly assaulted the respondent and She was turned out of her matrimonial house. Therefore, an application under S.12 of (in short 'The Act, 2005') was filed and apart from other reliefs, maintenance at the rate of Rs.6,000 per month was prayed.

4. The Magistrate, by order dated 30/07/2012 dismissed the application filed by the respondent.

5. Being aggrieved by order, dated 30/07/2012, the respondent filed a Criminal Appeal. The Appellate Court by order dated 30/04/2013 set aside the order of the Magistrate and allowed the application filed under S.12 of the Act, 2005. Apart from other reliefs, the Appellate Court directed for grant of Rs.2,000 per month for the respondent and Rs.1,000 per month each to both of her sons by way of monetary relief under S.20 of The Act, 2005. A further lumpsum of Rs.15,000 was also granted. Hence, this application:

6. The Counsel for the applicants has confined his arguments only with regard to the monetary relief which has been granted in favor of the respondent. It is submitted by the applicants that initially, the application under S.12 of the Act, 2005 was filed against the applicants and Shri. Nathu Singh (Father - in - law). However, Nathu Singh died during the pendency of the appeal and his name was not deleted therefore, the impugned order is bad as it has been passed against a dead person. It is further submitted by the Counsel for the applicants that the applicant No. 1 is the elder brother - in - law (tsB) of the respondent therefore, he is not liable to pay maintenance to her. It is the duty of the husband of the respondent to pay maintenance and therefore, the order of monthly maintenance is liable to be set aside against the applicant No. 1.

7. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the respondent, that as elder brother - in - law is also included in the definition of Respondent, therefore, he is also liable to pay monetary relief.

8. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.