Case Number 

  • CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.271 OF 2011

Equivalent Citation 

  • (2011) 3 SCC 650

Bench

  • Altamas Kabir 
  • Cyriac Joseph

Decided on 

  • 31 January 2011

Respondents 

  • (R1) Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade 
  • (R2) Ramabai, Appellant’s mother-in-law 
  • (R3) Appellant’s sister-in-law

Relevant Act/ Section 

  • Section 2(q) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
  • Section 498-A of India Penal Code

Brief Facts and Procedural History 

  • Although the main body of Section 2(q) expressly states that a respondent is a “adult male person,” the proviso broadens the scope of the proceedings by allowing an aggrieved wife or female in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a complaint against a relative of her husband/male partner. This refutes the claim that the legislation was written with the intention of excluding women. The appeal was granted, with the Trial Courts directed to consider R2 and R3 as respondents in the case.

Issues before the Court 

  • Do females fall under the definition of “respondents” in the Domestic Violence Act’s Section 2(q)? 
  • Are females excluded from prosecution under the Domestic Violence Act?

Facts of the Case 

  • The appellant lived with R1, R2, and R3 for over a year following her marriage in 2005, during which time her marriage was disrupted. She reported her husband to the police under section 498-A IPC For attacking her. She also filed a complaint against all three respondents. The First-Class Judicial Magistrate approved it, directing R1 to pay on a monthly basis maintenance. All respondents were also barred from evicting the appellant from her matrimonial home. Criminal appeals and applications brought before the Sessions Judge by an aggrieved R1. The appeals to the Supreme Court and the High Court were both dismissed.
  • R2 and R3 went before the First-Class Magistrate, but their request was denied. They filed an appeal, arguing that women cannot be named respondents in domestic violence cases. The Court agreed and overturned the order, allowing appellant to be evicted from her marriage home, which was solely owned by R2. As a result, it was not a “shared house.” The Court, on the other hand, ordered R1 to furnish separate accommodations or make additional payments for it.
  • The appellant’s appeal in Sessions Court was dismissed based on the determination that “females” are not included among “respondents.” The HC took a similar stance, striking R2 and R3’s names from the proceedings and ordering the appellant to evacuate the matrimonial home. As a result, this appeal has been made.

Decision of the Court 

  • Although the main body of Section 2(q) expressly states that a respondent is a “adult male person,” the proviso broadens the scope of the proceedings by allowing an aggrieved wife or female in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a complaint against a relative of her husband/male partner. This refutes the claim that the legislation was written with the intention of excluding women. The appeal was granted, with the Trial Courts directed to consider R2 and R3 as respondents in the case.

The case analysis has been done by Shrey Hasija.

The case analysis has been edited by Shubham Yadav, pursuing B.com LL.B.(4th Year) from Banasthali Vidyapith.

Latest Posts

Archives

Related posts:

Case Analysis: Alcock v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire
Challenge to the Constitution (One Hundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019
Duty of Public Prosecutor under the Criminal Justice System in India

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *