1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 14 OF 2010 Mr. Johnson Fernandes, Major in age, Resident of Panzorconni, Wokle Bhat, Near Nusi Hospital, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa. ... Petitioner versus 1. Mrs. Maria Fernandes 2. Mr. Michael Fernandes, Both residing at H.No.576/A, Panzorconni, Wokle Bhat, Near Nusi Hospital, Cuncolim, Salcete, Goa. 3. State Through Public Prosecutor. ... Respondents Shri Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.3. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 9TH DECEMBER, 2010. 2 JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 3. The petitioner herein is respondent No.1 in an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said application. 4. The applicants, in the said application are sister and brother. The respondents are also the brothers of the applicants. The names of respondent Nos.2 and 3 were deleted before the learned Sessions Court, by Order dated 14-12-2009, as can be seen from the cause title of Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2009. 5. There is no dispute that the applicants who are sister and brother of Respondent No.1 who is the petitioner before this Court, are residing in separate houses. The applicants reside in house No.576/A situated at Wokle Bhat, Panzorconni, Cuncolim while respondent No.1 resides in another house in the neighbourhood. The application under 3 Section 12 of the said Act was filed by the applicants who are sister and brother. It appears that the plea of non maintainability of the said application was taken but rather vaguely. The learned trial Court by Order dated 30-7-2009 has issued certain orders in terms of Section 18 of the said Act including against applicant No.2, the brother of applicant No.1. That Order has sought to be justified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by observing that applicant No.2 might have not been entitled to file the application as he was not entitled to the protection under the Act but that could not have come in the way of the Magistrate in granting relief to the applicants and passing a prohibitory Order also in favour of applicant No.2. 6. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was enacted to protect women and not men. The application was filed by applicant No.2 not on behalf of applicant No.1 but on behalf of both the applicants. In case it was filed by him on behalf of applicant No.1, being the aggrieved person, it would have been a different matter. The applicant no.2 was certainly not entitled to any relief under the said Act, and, therefore there was no question of either of the Courts granting a relief to applicant No.2, the brother of applicant No.1, on the specious 4 plea that applicant No.2 was giving assistance to applicant No.1 as sought to be reasoned out by the learned Magistrate and sought to be justified by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Applicant No.2 therefore was not entitled for any protection under the said Act. 7. Section 12 of the said Act deals with an application to be filed to the Magistrate and sub-section(1) thereof provides that an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act. 8. Section 2(a) defines an “aggrieved person” to mean any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. Section 2(f) defines “domestic relationship” to mean a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of 5 marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Section 2(q) defines the expression “respondent” to mean 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 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. Section 2(s) defines “shared household” to mean a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which 6 the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. 9. From the definitions, it can be seen that the “aggrieved person” can only be a woman, not a man for whose protection, the P.W.D.V. Act has been enacted. Likewise, the respondent, against whom a relief is sought can only be a man except in a case where the relief is sought by a wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage. The applicant No.1 might have been related to respondent No.1 by consanguinity but certainly they are not residing together in a “shared household”, the applicant No.1 having her own house bearing No.576/A, and the respondent No.1 in turn having his house in the neighbourhood in which they live inasmuch as there was also no evidence produced to disclose that both of them had lived together at any point of time in a shared household. A shared household would only mean a house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband or a house which belongs to the family of which the husband is a member. In the case at hand, the applicant No.1 lives in her own house and respondent No.1 lives in his own, and there is no shared household, as such. In case there was domestic violence or physical abuse to applicant No.1, from 7 respondent No.1, in my view, and as rightly submitted by Shri Arun Bras De Sa, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner, applicant No.1 could not have approached the Court with an application under Section 12 of the said Act but had to proceed under ordinary law. A protection Order could have been made only in case applicant No.1 was an aggrieved person within the meaning assigned to it under clause (a) of Section 2, and in case both had lived in a shared household as contemplated by clause (f) of Section 2. Both, applicant No.1 and respondent No.1 were not living in a shared household, and, therefore in my view, the applicant No.1 could not have invoked the provisions of the special legislation i.e. the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and that being the position, no orders could have been made by the learned J.M.F.C. under the Act not only in favour of applicant No.2 but also applicant No.1, as well. 10. Consequently, this criminal revision application deserves to succeed and orders of both the Courts are hereby set aside. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD