Case analysis by: Vishakha Pandey
Citation : [(2011) 3 SCC 650], Criminal Appeal No. (271/2011)
Date of Judgement: 31st January 2011
Bench: Justice Altamas Kabir, Justice Cyriac Joseph
Court: Supreme Court of India
Facts of the case:
This appeal was filed before the Supreme Court following the order passed by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court ordering the appellant to vacate her matrimonial house with regards to the petition filed following to proceeding from the Session’s Court wherein the High Court confirmed the order of the session court judge to withdraw all the respondent from the matter. The appellant here was married to Respondent 1 on 20th January 2005. The marriage between the appellant and respondent was registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. After the marriage the appellant was residing with her husband in his house which was located in the Khorej Colony in Amravati, the appellant here also mentioned that Respondent 2 and Respondent 3 also resided with them in the same house. The appellant mentioned about brutalities of her marriage that started after a period of one year. She filed a police complaint against her husband under section 498 A of IPC,1860 for assaulting her. She further filed an application against all the three respondents. On 16th June 2007 when the brutalities by her husband were at their peak, she was beaten mercilessly up to a situation it became unbearable for her, and to such beating, she lodged a complaint against him under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code,1860. The appellant also filed the complaint under section 12, section 18, section 19, section 20, and section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the other respondents, i.e. R2 and R3. The appellant filed a suit before the judicial magistrate of First Class under section 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Judicial Magistrate in turn directed R1 to pay monthly maintenance of a sum of Rs. 1500/- to the appellant and no dispossession will be allowed of the appellant from her matrimonial house by any respondents whomsoever.
Criminal appeals and applications filed by aggrieved R1 before the Sessions Judge and High Court were dismissed. Then R2 and R3 approached First Class Magistrate but their applications were also dismissed. They filed an appeal and argued on the ground that women cannot be made respondents in Domestic Violence proceedings. The Court accepted their appeal and set aside the command, allowing dispossession of the appellant from her matrimonial house, which exclusively belonged to R2. It was not a “shared house”. However, the Court directed for an alternative i.e. R1 to provide separate accommodation for the appellant or need to make an additional payment for it. The appeal filed by the appellant in Sessions Court was answered on a conclusion that “females” are not included under “respondents”.
The High Court also took a similar stand and was in favour of deleting the names of R2 and R3 from proceedings and directed that the appellant should vacate the matrimonial house. And in turn this appeal.
Issues of the case:
1. Are females included within the ambit of “respondents” under 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act,2005?
2. Are females excluded from being proceeded against under the Domestic Violence Act,2005?
Relevant Act/Sections:
1. Section 2(q) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
2. Section 498-A of India Penal Code,1860
Appellant’s contention:
A basic reading of the Domestic violence Act,2005 provision says that a wife or a female in a live-in relationship (in the nature of marriage) may file a complaint against her husband’s/male partner’s relatives. The HC erred in readily confirming that “relative” excludes females, as the term is not defined in the Act.
Respondent’s contention:
Since the expression “respondent” does not expressly include females, it reveals the intention of the lawmakers to deliberately exclude them.
Final Decision/Judgement:
The Supreme Court after hearing the learned counsels representing both the parties in the above matter and after considering the facts and the precedents submitted and established by the Judges to support the pleadings of the parties in the matter, states its observation that the Supreme Court should consider the contention mentioned by the learned advocate while submitting the prejudicial remark on the working of the High Court that relying on the facts finding of the Trial Court. The High Court has wrongly confirmed the order of the Trial Court where it affirmed the direction to delete the names of the respondent which were important for the conclusion of the case and appropriate application of the intention of the party. The High court in providing the rationale that no female in the case of domestic violence can be made a party to the matter of any offense committed under the Domestic Violence Act,2005, applies the correct interpretation of the female person in reading the definition of the respondent in the Act.
The plain reading of the definition might be contrary to the mind of the legislature applied while enacting such an act. Further, it will only serve the purpose if such definition or word is understood with reference to its context, and thus court further states that it was wisely decided by the court to present this view. The court in understanding the matter and considering the viewpoints of the Session’s Judge and the High Court of Bombay the court finds itself unable to sustain the order by the respective institution of the Judiciary in relation to an interpretation formed of the respondent under section2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court mentioned that for reference to this matter, it would be wise if the court itself states the section 2(q) here:
"Respondent" herein means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship i.e. husband to the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has asked for any relief under this Act; Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the character of marriage may also file a complaint against any relative of the husband or the male partner."
The court states that this above definition though excludes the female member of the house from being party to any criminal suit but the section which defines the complaint widens the scope of the complainant by stating that any person male or any relative of such male member who is in a domestic relationship with the female of the house who has lodged a complaint i.e. the aggrieved party(wife) about domestic violence that provides a fair meaning under the definition to understand the mind of the legislature. The court holds the opinion that if the legislature wants to exclude the female from being the person against whom the complaint cannot be filed under the Domestic Violence Act,2005 such specifications would have been mentioned by the legislature clearly instead of adding a provision that states that any relative or the member can be a party under the domestic violence whereas no specific definition of the relative has been mentioned and here the court for serving the purpose are of the opinion that while interpreting such clause or provision an inclusive interpretation fulfils the required cause. The court decides on the matter by stating that it is true and can be believed that such exclusion was a mere interpretation error, not the intent of the legislature. The Session Judge and the High Court of Bombay were wrong when deciding the matter it was decided on the wrong interpretation of section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and should be carried on.
The Supreme Court decides that the judgment by the earlier court be set aside and by allowing the appeal and suggested that the trial court should also proceed against the other respondents.
Case Analysis:
The main body of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 states that a respondent is an “adult male person”, the provision mentioned herein widens the scope of proceedings by stating that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship of marriage can file a complaint against a relative of her husband/male partner. This invalidates the argument that the legislative intent was to exclude females. The Appeal was with a direction to the Trial Courts to consider R2 and R3 as respondents in the proceedings.
Conclusion:
Although Section 2(q) of the domestic violence act,2005 expressly states that a respondent is an “adult male person”, or any relative of the husband /male partner who is in the relation of marriage with the aggrieved party i.e. the wife could be made respondent. Exclusion of the female relatives like a mother-in-law or sister-in-law was merely an interpretation error not the intent of the legislature.
References:
● https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/dv-act-s-2-q-case-law-females-can-be-respondents-in-dv-complaints-sandhya-wankhede-vs-manoj-bhimrao-wankhede-and-others-2011-3-scc-650-4216.asp
● https://lexpeeps.in/sou-sandhya-manoj-wankhade-vs-manoj-bhimrao-wankhade/
Comments