HARINI H. Vs. KAVYA H.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The argument of the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner has been unnecessarily made a party by the 1st respondent in her application before the Magistrate under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('Act' for short). He submits that the only allegation found is that the 1st respondent suspected her husband to be having illegal relationship with the petitioner and he thought of bringing her to his house. Therefore he argued that the petitioner herein should not have been made a party in the application filed under Sec. 12 of the Act as she does not fall within the meaning of respondent as mentioned under Sec. 2(q) of the Act. So far as the petitioner is concerned it cannot be said that she has committed domestic violence to prosecute her to claim any relief from her. In fact if the reliefs claimed in the application made under Sec. 12 of the Act are perused, no relief is claimed against the petitioner and therefore the proceedings against her requires to be quashed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1, i.e., the contesting respondent submits that because of the illegal relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent's husband, the 1st respondent used to be harassed. Domestic violence has been committed on the instigation of the petitioner and this is the reason for making her party in the application filed under Sec. 12 of the Act.