Can a Woman be "Respondent" under DV Act?
Two High Court judgments (Madras and MP) take the view that a woman cannot be a respondent under DV Act as defined in Section 2(q). Section 2 (q) reads - 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.
The unanimous opinion of these Hon’ble High Courts has been explained as follows in another judgment :
“…Section 12 of the Act provides that an application (not a complaint) for seeking one or more reliefs under the Act can be filed. On perusal of Section 18 to 22 of the Act, it appears that the reliefs under these Sections can be passed on the application under Section 12 of the Act. The word complaint as appeared in the definition of respondent under Section 2 (q) of the Act has not been defined anywhere in the Act. Although it is not provided that the definition of complaint can be considered the same as provided under the Cr. P. C but at the same time it is also not prohibited…”
“It is clear by the definition that a complaint as provided in Cr. P. C can only be for an offence. Only two offences have been mentioned in the Act and those are (i) Under Section 31 and (ii) Under Section 33. It appears that this word complaint appeared in the definition of respondent has been used for initiating proceedings for these two offences and an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage has been given a right to file a complaint against a relative of a husband or a male partner. This word complaint can not be considered beyond the scope of main provisions of this section which has been defined in first part of Section 2 (q) i.e. for any relief under this Act…” (excerpts from Kapil Rastogi v. Shakuntala Rastogi)
Thus no relief under DV Act can be claimed against a woman in view of these Judgments.
The other view however is that a woman too can be a respondent under the DV Act. The scope of the proviso is clearly narrow as compared to the first part of the Section; else it would not be a proviso. But the scope of the proviso cannot be restricted by the use of the words “complaint.” This is because the word has not only been used in Section 31 and 33 as pronounced by the Courts but also in Section 5 which lays down the duties of police officers, service providers and Magistrate. It states that “a police officer, service provider or Magistrate who has received a complaint of domestic violence”…. And then goes on to enumerate their duties. This clearly indicates that a complaint under DV Act is a complaint in the general sense and not in the sense of complaint against an offence under Cr.PC definition.
Secondly if a complaint can be filed only in case of Section 31 i.e. non-compliance with orders, then this would mean that no action can lie against a woman whatsoever as an act of non-compliance of an order can be done only by the person against whom the order is passed, which as according to these aforementioned High Courts can only be a male person. This interpretation therefore would render the proviso completely meaningless.
Finally, if the legislature intended that no relief should be claimed against a woman or that no order should be passed against a woman, then it would never have incorporated a proviso to section 19 (1) (b) which lays down that a residence order directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household shall not be passed against any person who is a woman. The inclusion of this proviso shows that other orders may be passed against a woman but a residence order of this nature cannot be passed.
Then given this, does this mean that a woman can also be a respondent like any male person with whom the aggrieved person is in a domestic relationship? No, certainly not. The scope of the proviso is restricted to an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage. This means that a woman can seek relief against her mother –in –law (being the relative of her husband), but she cannot seek similar relief against her own mother. A woman can seek relief against her father or brother (being adult male persons with whom she lives in a domestic relationship) but she cannot seek relief against her mother. The import of the definition therefore is that any male person can be a respondent but relief against a woman lies only if she is a relative of the husband or male partner of the aggrieved person and not otherwise.
The unanimous opinion of these Hon’ble High Courts has been explained as follows in another judgment :
“…Section 12 of the Act provides that an application (not a complaint) for seeking one or more reliefs under the Act can be filed. On perusal of Section 18 to 22 of the Act, it appears that the reliefs under these Sections can be passed on the application under Section 12 of the Act. The word complaint as appeared in the definition of respondent under Section 2 (q) of the Act has not been defined anywhere in the Act. Although it is not provided that the definition of complaint can be considered the same as provided under the Cr. P. C but at the same time it is also not prohibited…”
“It is clear by the definition that a complaint as provided in Cr. P. C can only be for an offence. Only two offences have been mentioned in the Act and those are (i) Under Section 31 and (ii) Under Section 33. It appears that this word complaint appeared in the definition of respondent has been used for initiating proceedings for these two offences and an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage has been given a right to file a complaint against a relative of a husband or a male partner. This word complaint can not be considered beyond the scope of main provisions of this section which has been defined in first part of Section 2 (q) i.e. for any relief under this Act…” (excerpts from Kapil Rastogi v. Shakuntala Rastogi)
Thus no relief under DV Act can be claimed against a woman in view of these Judgments.
The other view however is that a woman too can be a respondent under the DV Act. The scope of the proviso is clearly narrow as compared to the first part of the Section; else it would not be a proviso. But the scope of the proviso cannot be restricted by the use of the words “complaint.” This is because the word has not only been used in Section 31 and 33 as pronounced by the Courts but also in Section 5 which lays down the duties of police officers, service providers and Magistrate. It states that “a police officer, service provider or Magistrate who has received a complaint of domestic violence”…. And then goes on to enumerate their duties. This clearly indicates that a complaint under DV Act is a complaint in the general sense and not in the sense of complaint against an offence under Cr.PC definition.
Secondly if a complaint can be filed only in case of Section 31 i.e. non-compliance with orders, then this would mean that no action can lie against a woman whatsoever as an act of non-compliance of an order can be done only by the person against whom the order is passed, which as according to these aforementioned High Courts can only be a male person. This interpretation therefore would render the proviso completely meaningless.
Finally, if the legislature intended that no relief should be claimed against a woman or that no order should be passed against a woman, then it would never have incorporated a proviso to section 19 (1) (b) which lays down that a residence order directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household shall not be passed against any person who is a woman. The inclusion of this proviso shows that other orders may be passed against a woman but a residence order of this nature cannot be passed.
Then given this, does this mean that a woman can also be a respondent like any male person with whom the aggrieved person is in a domestic relationship? No, certainly not. The scope of the proviso is restricted to an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage. This means that a woman can seek relief against her mother –in –law (being the relative of her husband), but she cannot seek similar relief against her own mother. A woman can seek relief against her father or brother (being adult male persons with whom she lives in a domestic relationship) but she cannot seek relief against her mother. The import of the definition therefore is that any male person can be a respondent but relief against a woman lies only if she is a relative of the husband or male partner of the aggrieved person and not otherwise.
Comments
Post a Comment