Criminal Misc. No. M-25192 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-25192 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.10.2011. Swatanter Bala alias Good ..Petitioner Versus Swarn Kaur and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ritesh Pandey, Advocate, for the respondents. NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL) This complainant's petition is directed against the order dated August 22nd, 2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (Annexure P-5), vide which, he set-aside the order dated November 11th, 2008 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar (Annexure P-4), whereby, Swarn Kaur, Sharanjit Kaur and Kanwaljit Kaur (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) along with two others were summoned to face trial in a complaint case filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act'). 2. While setting-aside the order dated November 11th, 2008 (Annexure P-4), learned Additional Sessions Judge held that the definition of Section 2(q) of the Act is that females are not including in the said definition and as such discharged the respondents. For facilitation, Section 2(q) of the Act is reproduced as under: - “2(q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the Criminal Misc. No. M-25192 of 2009 (O&M) 2 aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided 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.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of respondent in Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and others, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 884, that it includes females also. Paragraph Nos.12 to 15 are reproduced as under: - “xxx xxx xxx 12. From the above definition it would be apparent that although Section 2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso widens the scope of the said definition by including a relative of the husband or male partner within the scope of a complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage. 13. It is true that the expression “female” has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other hand, if the Legislature intended to exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression “relative”, nor has the said expression been specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, Criminal Misc. No. M-25192 of 2009 (O&M) 3 2005, to make it specific to males only. 14. In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 15. In our view, both the Sessions Judge and the High Court went wrong in holding otherwise, possibly being influenced by the definition of the expression “respondent” in the main body of Section 2(q) of the aforesaid Act. xxx xxx xxx” 4. In view of this legal position, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded and stated that he has no objection against acceptance of the petition. 5. In view of this, present petition is accepted. Order dated August 22nd, 2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, is set-aside and order dated November 11th, 2008 (Annexure P-4) of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, is restored. 18.10.2011 (NAWAB SINGH) neetu JUDGE