IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6585 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
Smt. Nalini, W/o. S.Sridhar, Aged about 42 years, R/at in a portion of Sy.No’s, S.17/1 & 17/2, Anagahally Village, Belagola Hobli, Srirangapatna Taluk, Mandya District – 571 606.
…Petitioner (By Sri.K.M.Sanath Kumara, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri.Sridhar, S/o late C.Subramnya, Aged about 52 years, 2. Smt.Gowramma, W/o late C.Subramnya, Aged about 79 years, 3. S.Jayakumar, S/o late C.Subramnya, Aged about 58 years, 4. S.Jalaja, D/o late C.Subramnya, Aged about 56 years, 5. Smt.S.Rukmini, D/o late C.Subramnya, Aged about 54 years, The Respondents No.1 to 5 are R/at No.,32, 1st Main Road, Yadavagiri, Mysore – 570 020.
(By Sri.V.Anand, Advocate - Absent) ...Respondents This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Prl.C.J., and JMFC, Srirangapatna in C.Misc.No.1/13 as far as the dismissal of the petition against the respondents No.2, 4 and 5 is concerned.
This Criminal petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents is absent. Perused the petition.
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna in Crl.Misc.No.1/2013, whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on the ground that respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 are women and they do not answer the description of ‘respondent’ as defined under Section 2(q) of the said Act.
3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has interpreted the scope and ambit of Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act in the case of Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors. reported in 2011 Crl.L.J. 1687 and in Paragraph Nos.11 to 13 thereof has held as under:
“11. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are unable to sustain the decisions, both of the learned Sessions Judge as also the High Court, in relation to the interpretation of the expression “respondent” in Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. For the sake of reference, Section 2(q) of the above said Act is extracted hereinbelow:-
“2(q). “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act.
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.”
12. From the above definition it would be apparent that although Section 2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso widens the scope of the said definition by including a relative or the husband or male partner within the scope of the complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage.
13. It is true that the expression “female” has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other than, if the Legislature intended to exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed 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 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 Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only.”
In view of this position of law, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.04.2013 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Srirangapatna in Crl.Misc.No.1/2013 is quashed.
The Trial Court shall proceed against the respondents in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE GH