LAKSHMIMANI W/O SRI. PUTTEGOWDA AND SMT. SHALINI W/O SATHISH D/O PUTTEGOWDA Vs. SMT. NEETHU N. W/O SUNILGOWDA D/O NAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have sought for quashing of the proceedings in Crl. Misc. No. 67/2012. Crl. Misc. No. 67/2012 is filled by the wife of the 1st accused under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(2.) PETITIONERS are the family members of the 1st accused. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the family members of the 1st accused should not have been impleaded as respondents in the proceedings as no petition is maintainable for a relief against the women members. He has also relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2010(1) KCCR 459 in the case of 'Sri. Amruth Kumar and Anr. v. Smt. Chithra Shetty and Anr.' However, this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Apex Court in a judgment reported in 2011 AIR SCW 1327 in the case of 'Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors.', wherein the Apex Court has observed as under: ...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 Act, to make it specific to males only. In view of the same, now, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the family members could not have been included in the complaint. Hence, no grounds.