- Bench: Altamas Kabir; Cyriac Joseph, JJ (SC)
- Court: Supreme Court
- Appellant: Sandhya Manoj Wankhade
- Respondents: (R1) Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade
- (R2) Ramabai, Appellant’s mother-in-law
- (R3) Appellant’s sister-in-law
- Citation:(2011)3SCC650
Issue: Do females fall within the ambit of “respondents” u/s 2(q) of the DV Act? Are females exempted from being proceeded against under DV Act?
Facts:
- After her marriage in 2005, the appellant was residing with R1, R2 and R3 for almost a year, after which there were disruptions in her marriage. She filed a police case against her husband u/s 498 –A IPC for assaulting her. She further filed an application against all the three respondents, which was allowed by the First Class Judicial Magistrate, directing R1 to pay monthly maintenance. It also restrained all respondents from evicting the appellant from her matrimonial house. Criminal appeals and applications filed by an aggrieved R1 before the Sessions Judge and High Court were dismissed.
- R2 and R3 approached First Class Magistrate but their application was dismissed. They filed an appeal and argued on the ground that women cannot be made respondents in DV proceedings. The Court accepted the same and set aside the injunction, allowing dispossession of appellant from her matrimonial house, which exclusively belonged to R2. Hence, it was not a “shared house”. However, the Court directed for an alternative i.e. R1 to provide separate accommodation or make additional payment for it.
- Appeal filed by appellant in Sessions Court was answered on a conclusion that “females” are not included under “respondents”. HC also took a similar stand to delete the names of R2 and R3 from proceedings and directed the appellant to vacate the matrimonial house. Hence, this appeal.
Appellant’s contentions:
- A basic reading of the DV Act provision says that a wife or a female in 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” do not expressly include females, it reveals the intention of the lawmakers to deliberately exclude them.
Final Decision:
Although the main body of Section 2(q) expressly states that a respondent is an “adult male person”, the proviso widens the scope of proceedings by stating that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage can file a complaint against a relative of her husband/male partner. This rescinds the argument that the legislative intent was to exclude females. The Appeal was allowed with a direction to the Trial Courts to consider R2 and R3 as respondents in the proceedings.
