MANJU A NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Single Judge, while considering the question whether a mother could proceed against her daughter under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, taking note of the two decisions of this court in Remadevi v. State of Kerala and Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu, 2010 1 KerLT 79. felt that though it was held therein that respondent in a complaint filed under the Act could also be a female person, in view of the proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act, the scope of the proviso is limited to a complaint filed either by the aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage and that aspect was not considered in both the decisions. Hence the following question was referred to a larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement on "whether the 'proviso' in the definition of Respondent under Section 2(q) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) enables only an aggrieved wife' or a 'woman living in a relationship in the nature of marriage', to proceed against the 'relative of the husband' or 'the male partner' as a respondent in a proceeding under the Act, or, does it enlarge and include all persons falling under the definition of 'aggrieved person' under the Act. The Revision Petition was thus placed before this Bench.

(2.) 'Aggrieved person' is defined in Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act as follows: '

(3.) Thus, the main clause takes in only an adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person as the respondent and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the Act. A female adult person cannot be a respondent in a complaint filed under the Act, as defined under the main clause. The scope of the respondent is widened by the proviso. As per the proviso, if a complaint is filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in relationship in the nature of a marriage, a female relative of the husband or the male partner could also be the respondent. The question decided in both Remadevi's case and Vijayalekshmi A mm a's case was whether a female person could be a respondent in a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Act. In both the decisions, it was held that a female person could also be a respondent in a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Act, in view of the proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act and also in view of the other relevant provisions of the Act. That question is no more res Integra in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sandhya Manoj Wankhade v. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade, 2011 1 KerLT 609.