Criminal Misc. No. M- 25664 of 2010(O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 25664 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: November 15, 2011 Roshani ...Petitioner Versus Anuradha ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Kundu, Advocate for the respondent. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) Challenge is to the order dated August 18th, 2010, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad, whereby, the application of Roshani – petitioner to dismiss the application of Anuradha – respondent filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') was dismissed. 2. The solitary submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that as per Sub Section (q) of Section 2 of the Act, females cannot be prosecuted under the Act. 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 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.” Criminal Misc. No. M- 25664 of 2010(O&M) [2] 3. The contention is not tenable in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and others, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 884, wherein, interpretation of Section 2(q) of the Act has been made 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, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M- 25664 of 2010(O&M) [3] 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. This Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-25192 of 2009 (Swatanter Bala alias Good vs. Swarn Kaur and others) decided on October 18th, 2011, while relying upon the afore-quoted Authority has held that female relatives of the husband or the male partner of the complainant come within the ambit of the Act. 5. In view of this legal position, no ground is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge. Hence, the petition is dismissed. November 15, 2011 ( NAWAB SINGH ) gian JUDGE