LexSOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE versus MANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 2 S.C.R. 261
SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE
V.
MANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2011}
JANUARY 31, 2011
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
- s.2(q) read with proviso thereto - Expression "respondent"
A
8
in s. 2(q) - Interpretation of - Complaint under the provisions C
of the Act - Whether female members cannot be made
parties in proceedings under the Act, as "females" are not
included in the definition of "respondent" in s.2(q) - Held:
Although s.2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male
person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the o
aggrieved person, the proviso to s.2(q) widens the scope of
the said definition by including a relative of the husband or
male partner within the scope of a complaint, which may be
filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship
in the nature of a marriage - Though the expression "female"
E
has not been used in the proviso to s.2(q) also, but, if the
Legislature intended to exclude females from the ambit of the
complaint, which can be fifed by an aggrieved wife, females
would have been specifically excluded, instead of it being
provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed
F
against a relative of the husband or the male partner - No
restrictive meaning has been given to the expression
"relative", nor has the said expression been specifically
defined in the Act, to make it specific to males only - In such
circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended
G
to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner
from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the
provisions of the Act.
261
H
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 2 S.C.R.
A
The appellant had filed a complaint, being a Misc. Crl.
Application, against her husband {respondent no.1 ),
mother-in-law {respondent no.2) and sister-in-law
{respondent no.3) under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
8 2005.
The High Court, by the impugned judgment,
confirmed the order of the Sessions Judge in regard to
deletion of names of respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the
proceedings, upon confirmation of the finding of the
C Sessions Judge that no female could be made a party to
a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, since
the expression "female" had not been included in the
definition of "respondent" in the said Act.
The question which, therefore, arose for
D consideration in the instant appeal was whether female
members cannot be made parties in proceedings under
the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as "females" are not
included in the definition of "respondent" in Section 2(q)
of the said Act.
E
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. Although Section 2(q) of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines a
respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has
F been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved
person, the proviso to Section 2(q) widens the scope of
the said definition by including a relative of the husband
or male partner within the scope of a complaint, which
may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living In a
G relationship In the nature of a marriage. (Paras 11, 12]
[267-E-H; 268·A·B]
H
2. It Is true that the expression "female" has not been
used In the proviso to Section 2{q) also, but, on the other
hand, If the Legislature intended to exclude females from
SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE v. MANOJ
263
BHIMRAO WANKHADE & ORS.
the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an
A
aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically
excluded, instead of it being provided in the proviso that
a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the
husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has
been given to the expression "relative", nor has the said
B
expression been specifically defined in the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only. [Para
13] [268·B·C]
3. In such circumstances, it is clear that the
legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of C
the husband or male partner from the ambit of a
complaint that can be made under the provisions of the
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. [Para 14) (268·0]
4; Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court went
wrong in holding otherwise, possibly being influenced by
D
the definition of the expression "respondent" in thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.