Case Note & Summary
The applicants, who are adult female members of the family, challenged an order dated 10/3/2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, rejecting their application (Exh.40) for dismissal of a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) by the non-applicants (widow and children of deceased Prakash Pawade). The applicants argued that under Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act, the definition of 'respondent' does not include adult female members, and that the basis for the complaint was taken away due to a settlement recorded by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 667 of 2014 on 17/9/2014, which ended the shared household. The non-applicants contended that the definition of 'respondent' includes adult female members and relied on the case of Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wan. The court held that the definition of 'respondent' under Section 2(q) includes any adult male or female person in a domestic relationship, and thus adult female members can be respondents. The court also held that the settlement regarding the shared household does not automatically terminate the proceedings under Section 12; the applicants can approach the trial court for discharge based on new developments. The court dismissed the application for quashing but granted liberty to applicant No.1 to seek discharge before the trial court.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Definition of Respondent - Section 2(q) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Adult Female Members - The court held that the definition of 'respondent' under Section 2(q) includes any adult male or female person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. Therefore, adult female members of the family can be made respondents in a complaint under the D.V. Act. (Paras 4-6)
B) Domestic Violence - Quashing of Proceedings - Shared Household - Settlement - The court held that even if there is a settlement regarding the shared household, it does not automatically terminate the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The applicants can raise the issue of new developments before the trial court by way of an application for discharge. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether adult female members of a family can be considered 'respondents' under Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether the complaint under Section 12 of the Act can be quashed on the ground that there is no shared household after a settlement.
Final Decision
Application dismissed. However, liberty granted to applicant No.1 to approach the trial court for seeking discharge by pointing out new developments.
Law Points
- Definition of respondent under Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act includes adult female members
- Settlement regarding shared household does not automatically terminate proceedings under Section 12
- Application for discharge can be made before trial court based on new developments
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 96
Criminal Application (APL) No. 355 of 2014
Shri Aniruddha Choube for applicants, Shri D. T. Shinde for non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4, Shri S. M. Bhagde, A. P. P. for State
Arun s/o Ramkrishna Pawade and others
Smt. Nilima wd/o Prakash Pawade and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application challenging order rejecting application for dismissal of complaint under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Remedy Sought
Quashing of proceedings under Section 12 of D.V. Act
Filing Reason
Applicants contended that adult female members cannot be respondents under Section 2(q) and that shared household ceased due to settlement
Previous Decisions
Order dated 10/3/2014 of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur rejecting application (Exh.40) for dismissal of complaint; Settlement recorded by Division Bench in Criminal Writ Petition No. 667 of 2014 on 17/9/2014
Issues
Whether adult female members can be considered 'respondents' under Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act?
Whether the complaint under Section 12 can be quashed on the ground that there is no shared household after a settlement?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants: Definition of respondent under Section 2(q) does not include adult female members; shared household ceased due to settlement, so proceedings should be quashed.
Non-applicants: Definition includes adult female members; settlement does not automatically terminate proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The definition of 'respondent' under Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 includes any adult male or female person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. A settlement regarding shared household does not automatically terminate proceedings under Section 12; the applicants can raise new developments before the trial court.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the definition of Section 2(q) of the D. V. Act and also the fact that the nature of relationship claimed by nonapplicant Nos. 1 to 4 is of the relationship existing between the members of a joint family, the complaint under the D. V. Act could not have been filed against the applicant Nos. 2 to 5, they being the adult female members.
According to learned Counsel for nonapplicant Nos. 1 to 4, the proceedings cannot be quashed for the reason that even the female members are included in the definition of respondent as appearing in Section 2(q) of the D. V. Act and for this submission he has placed reliance upon the case of Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wan
Procedural History
The applicants filed an application (Exh.40) before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur for dismissal of the complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The Magistrate rejected the application on 10/3/2014. The applicants then filed the present criminal application before the Bombay High Court challenging that order. Meanwhile, a settlement was recorded by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 667 of 2014 on 17/9/2014. The High Court heard the application and dismissed it on 30/1/2015, granting liberty to applicant No.1 to seek discharge before the trial court.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 2(q), 12
