<p>A bench of justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph in a judgement set aside the concurrent orders of a sessions court and the Bombay High Court that female relatives of the husband cannot be booked under the Act as the legislation was meant only against the husband or any other male member.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended 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 Domestic Violence Act, 2005," Justice Kabir said writing the judgement.<br /><br />The apex court passed the ruling while upholding an appeal filed by Sandhya Manoj Wankhade, the aggrieved wife, challenging the findings of the lower courts which besides precluding female members from being booked for the alleged offence, also asked her to vacate the matrimonial house in Amravati district in Maharashtra since it was registered in the name of her mother-in-law Ramabai.<br /><br />The wife had filed the complaint against husband Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade, widowed mother-in-law Ramabai and a sister-in-law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. <br /><br />Section 2(q)of the Act defines a "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.<br /><br />"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."<br />Interpreting the provision, the apex court said it is true the expression "female"” has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also.<br /><br />"But 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.<br /><br />"In our view, both the sessions judge and the High Court were wrong in holding otherwise, possibly being influenced by the definition of the expression 'respondent' in the main body of Section 2(q) of the aforesaid Act," the bench said while allowing the appeal of the wife.</p>
<p>A bench of justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph in a judgement set aside the concurrent orders of a sessions court and the Bombay High Court that female relatives of the husband cannot be booked under the Act as the legislation was meant only against the husband or any other male member.<br /><br />"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.<br /><br />"In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended 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 Domestic Violence Act, 2005," Justice Kabir said writing the judgement.<br /><br />The apex court passed the ruling while upholding an appeal filed by Sandhya Manoj Wankhade, the aggrieved wife, challenging the findings of the lower courts which besides precluding female members from being booked for the alleged offence, also asked her to vacate the matrimonial house in Amravati district in Maharashtra since it was registered in the name of her mother-in-law Ramabai.<br /><br />The wife had filed the complaint against husband Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade, widowed mother-in-law Ramabai and a sister-in-law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. <br /><br />Section 2(q)of the Act defines a "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.<br /><br />"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."<br />Interpreting the provision, the apex court said it is true the expression "female"” has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also.<br /><br />"But 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.<br /><br />"In our view, both the sessions judge and the High Court were wrong in holding otherwise, possibly being influenced by the definition of the expression 'respondent' in the main body of Section 2(q) of the aforesaid Act," the bench said while allowing the appeal of the wife.</p>