BISMI SAINUDHEEN Vs. NABEESA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very crucial question that arose for consideration in the above M.C. is, whether the "wife" or "daughter in law" would come within the definition of "Respondent" contained in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to for short as "the Act" only). In order to answer the above question, brief facts which led to the filing of the above M.C. are inevitable, which follows as: The challenge in this M.C. is against an order dated 15.12.2012 in C.M.P. No. 4687/10 in M.C. No. 76/09 on the file of the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Thiruvananthapuram, filed by the mother-in-law of the present petitioner, by which the learned Magistrate allowed the petition, impleading the petitioner, who is the wife of the 2nd respondent in the above M.C. and the daughter in law of the petitioner therein. The petitioner herein, for convenience hereinafter referred to as, the wife/daughter in law and the 1st respondent as, the aggrieved person, and her son, who is the husband of the petitioner, as the 2nd respondent.

(2.) According to the petitioner herein, the aggrieved person approached the court below by filing C.M.P. No. 3689/10, after one year from the date of filing of M.C. No. 76/09 under Section 12 of the Act. Thus, besides pointing out the delay in filing the petition for impleading the petitioner, it was contended before the court below that the same was filed to disturb harmonious matrimonial relationship between herself and the 2nd respondent, who is the son of the aggrieved person. According to the petitioner, her father-in-law, namely the husband of the aggrieved person, was the Managing Director of a Public Sector Undertaking and thus the aggrieved person is earning Rs. 10,000/- as family pension and her other daughters are well settled and the aggrieved person is residing along with one of her daughters. Thus stating all the above facts, the petitioner had filed an objection against the impleading petition. Copy of C.M.P. No. 3689/10 filed by the aggrieved person for impleading the petitioner and the affidavit sworn into by her, and the objections subsequently filed therein by the petitioner are produced as Annexures A and B. Annexure C is the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, in C.M.P. No. 3689/10 filed by the aggrieved person, wherein cost was ordered to be paid by the aggrieved person to the 2nd respondent, for the inordinate delay in filing the petition. It is the further case of the petitioner that, against Annexure C order, by filing Crl. M.C. No. 4389/10, she approached this Court, but the same was disposed by this Court, granting liberty to the petitioner to appear before the court below raising the contention that she will not come under the purview of "respondent" as defined under the Act, and Annexure D is the said order of this Court. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in terms of Annexure D, the wife/daughter-in-law, who is the petitioner herein, has filed C.M.P. No. 4687/10 in the court below, challenging the maintainability of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent against the wife/daughter-in-law and the said petition was heard by the predecessor Magistrate, who issued summons to the wife/daughter-in-law on two occasions for being examined as witness from the side of the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, the wife/daughter-in-law, after the assumption of charge by the present Magistrate, the said petition was dismissed without hearing the petitioner or her counsel, which order is produced here as Annexure E.

(3.) The case of the aggrieved person is that, she is a senior citizen and a widow, residing in an orphanage. Her husband Ibrahim Kutty had expired on 21.4.2004. Besides the 2nd respondent, she has two daughters and another son, as her children. According to her, she was residing along with her husband and children in Shahina Manzil, T.C. No. 13/705, for more than 13 years and the said house and property having an extent of about 6 cents stands in the name of her deceased husband, which was purchased by him through a valid sale deed. Her daughters and the other son are residing separately. According to the aggrieved person, her son - the 2nd respondent, in collusion with his wife, harassed, humiliated and threatened her and has finally driven her out of her own house with the ulterior motive of grabbing the property. According to the aggrieved person, she being a widow who was residing in Shahina Manzil, the house and the property which were in the name of her deceased husband, proposed to spend rest of her life in the said house, as she has got sentiments with such house where she lived along with her deceased husband. According to the aggrieved person, the above property is in the name of her deceased husband and he had not executed any Will giving the right over it to anybody including her son, who is the 2nd respondent herein.