JALPABEN CHANDUBHAI PADSALA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 vide Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.676/2010 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') qua the applicant.

(2.) THE respondent No.2 herein filed an application/complaint under section 12 of the Act in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot against her husband and her in -laws, in all against ten respondents including the present petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint are mainly in respect of the harassment meted out to her by the other respondents who are her husband and her in -laws. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the allegations are contained in paragraph 2 and 11 of the complaint wherein it is alleged that the respondent No.1 despite being lawfully married to the respondent No.2 has kept the petitioner in his house as a kept woman. The sole allegation made against the present petitioner is that despite the fact that there is a subsisting marriage between the respondent No.2 complainant and her husband, who is the respondent No.1 in the complaint, he was unlawfully living with the petitioner herein in his house.

(3.) MR . Umesh Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the application under section 12 of the Act qua the present petitioner are false and vexatious. It was submitted that assuming that the said allegations made in the complaint are true, even then, all that is stated is that the respondent No.1 in the original application, viz. the husband of the original applicant was keeping the petitioner as a kept woman despite a subsisting marriage with the respondent No.2 - original applicant. Referring to the provisions of clause (q) of section 2 of the Act which defines "respondent" it was pointed out that "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 the Act. The proviso thereto lays down 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. It was submitted that clause (q) of section 2 of the Act envisages the "respondent" to be a male adult person and that a complaint may also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. Insofar as a female is concerned, she may be joined as a respondent only if she is a relative of the husband or the male partner. It was submitted that considering the averments made in the application under section 12 of the Act, it is apparent that the petitioner herein does not fall within the ambit of a relative of the husband and as such, it is not permissible for the respondent No.2 to implead her as a respondent in an application under section 12 of the Act. It was further submitted that if the petitioner herein is arraigned as a respondent, she would have to face the consequences of the order passed by the court which may lead to punishment, that is, criminal liability, and therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved by being joined as a respondent. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U. Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and Anr., 2009 Supp AIR(SC) 1451, wherein the court held that in the absence of any statutory definition, the term 'relative' must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily, it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word 'relative' would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. The court held that by no stretch of imagination, a girl or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a 'relative'. The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise. The learned advocate, accordingly, submitted that if the averments made in the application are taken to be true, even then, the petitioner not being a relative of the husband, cannot be made a respondent in the application in question.