IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 493 of 2008() ------------------------ MC.88/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: REVISION PETITIONER ------------------------------------------------------------ MAHILAMMA, W/O.RAGHU, KIZHAKKEPULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, KIDAPRAM, PATTAM THURUTHU P.O. MUNRO ISLAND, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------ 1. KAVITHA RAJEES, VASAVA MANDIRAM, NENMENI EAST, MUNRO THURUTHU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RAGHU N., KIZHAKKEPULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, PATTAM THURUTHU P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. N.RAJEES, PULIMOOTTIL HOUSE, TALIPARAMBA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No. 493 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008 ORDER The petitioner, who is the third respondent in M.C.No.88/2007on the file of J.F.C.M-I, Kollam, which is a petition filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 12(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), challenges Annexure A1 notice calling upon her to appear before the learned Magistrate on 28.12.07. 2. According to the petitioner, she does not answer the definition of 'respondent' as defined under Section 2(q) of the said Act, since the “respondent” under the Act can only be a male. I cannot agree. Going by the proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act, the respondent can also be a female and the proviso to Section 19(1)(f) of the Act would go to reinforce the above conclusion. But then, if the petitioner has not been in a domestic relationship or has not been living in a relationship qua the 1st respondent-applicant in M.C.No.88/2007 so as to attract the definition of “the respondent”, that is a matter which the Crl.M.C.No.493 of 2008 2 petitioner could raise before the Magistrate and the Magistrate shall consider the contention of the petitioner in that behalf before passing orders under the Act. This Crl.M.C is disposed of as above. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj