Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a domestic violence complaint filed by the widow of one Trimbak Foke under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The widow, respondent no.2, alleged that after her husband's death in 1993, his relatives—brothers, their wives, and sisters—subjected her to physical and mental torture and denied her maintenance and a share in the joint family properties. She had filed a partition suit and obtained a decree for 10/45th share but was not given possession; the relatives pressured her to relinquish her share for Rs.20 lakh and, upon refusal, abused and threatened her. She sought reliefs including right to shared household, protection orders, monetary relief, and compensation. The Magistrate, by interim order dated 01.12.2015, directed certain respondents to pay Rs.1500 per month as maintenance. The petitioners, being the brother-in-laws, their wives, and the sisters of the deceased husband, approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying to quash the criminal application and the interim order. They contended that under Section 2(q) of the Act, a 'respondent' can only be an adult male and thus the complaint against female relatives was not maintainable, relying on a previous decision. The widow argued that specific allegations were made against all and the proceeding should not be stalled at the threshold. The High Court, after examining the statutory definitions, observed that Section 2(q) read with the proviso does not exclude females; the term 'relative' is gender-neutral and includes female members of the family who are in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The court also noted that the complaint detailed instances of physical abuse, verbal abuse, and economic abuse as defined under Section 3, which were questions of fact that could not be decided in writ jurisdiction at a nascent stage. The court held that the proceeding under Section 12 is maintainable against the female petitioners and refused to quash the complaint. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence Act - Maintainability of Complaint Against Female Relatives - Interpretation of Section 2(q) - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Sections 2(q), 2(a), 2(f), 3, 12 - The petitioners contended that only adult males can be respondents under the D.V. Act. The High Court, after examining the definitions of 'aggrieved person', 'domestic relationship', 'respondent', 'shared household', and 'domestic violence', held that the proviso to Section 2(q) allows complaint against any relative of the husband, and 'relative' is not gender-specific. Therefore, a complaint under Section 12 is maintainable against female relatives. Held that the proceeding against female respondents is not liable to be quashed on this ground. (Paras 10-13) B) Domestic Violence Act - Quashing of Complaint at Nascent Stage - Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction Under Articles 226 and 227 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 12; Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - The court declined to quash the complaint at the threshold, noting that the respondent-widow's application contained specific allegations of physical, verbal, and economic abuse as defined under Section 3. The court held that these are questions of fact requiring evidence and an opportunity to the complainant. The writ petition was dismissed as premature. Held that interference under writ jurisdiction is not warranted when factual allegations disclose a prima facie case. (Paras 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable against female relatives of the deceased husband, and whether the criminal application filed by the respondent-widow can be quashed at the threshold.
Final Decision
The High Court held that the definition of 'respondent' in Section 2(q) does not exclude female family members, and a complaint under Section 12 can be maintained against a female relative of the husband. The court found that the application disclosed specific instances of domestic violence and was a matter of fact requiring evidence. Therefore, the writ petition seeking quashing of the proceedings was dismissed.
Law Points
- definition of respondent under Section 2(q) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 includes female relatives
- relative in proviso is gender-neutral
- domestic relationship includes family members living together
- complaint under Section 12 lies against any relative including females
- questions of fact regarding domestic violence cannot be quashed at nascent stage
