Definition Of 'Respondent' In Domestic Violence Act Clearly Limits To Adult Males: Bombay HC Quashes FIR Against Niece Of Husband
|The Bombay High Court ruled that a niece of a husband cannot be prosecuted under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 (DV Act).
The case arose from a contentious domestic situation in which the niece was accused, along with her uncle, of violating a court order that mandated the husband to pay maintenance. The petitioner filed a petition to quash an FIR lodged against her by her uncle's wife. A Pune Magistrate's court had ordered the husband to pay ₹30,000 per month in maintenance to his wife and ₹7,500 for their son until he reaches adulthood.
A Division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said, “Perusal of Section 31 of the DV Act, 2005, would disclose that it is a provision contemplating penalty for breach of protection order by the Respondent and the “Respondent” is defined in the Act, in Section 2(q) 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.”
Advocate Tapan Thatte appeared for the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor J P Yagnik appeared for the Respondent.
The wife claimed in her complaint under the Domestic Violence Act that her husband had failed to pay ₹50,40,000 in maintenance from 2014 to August 2024. The FIR, filed on September 18, 2024, alleged that the husband transferred substantial amounts—₹94,00,000 on April 19, 2024, and ₹97,00,000 on April 20, 2024—to his niece's bank account, in violation of the protective order issued by the magistrate.
The Court emphasized that the definition of “respondent” clearly pertains to adult males in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The bench highlighted that the petitioner, as a female relative, had no direct role in the domestic dispute and therefore did not meet the criteria outlined in the Act.
Furthermore, the Court noted, "In addition, Section 406 is also involved, but we have failed to understand how it could be said that some money or valuable security was entrusted to the petitioner, who has no connection with the dispute between husband and wife, which is pending for adjudication in the DV Court."
Thus, the High Court ruled that the registration of the FIR against the niece could not be upheld, as she did not qualify as a respondent under the DV Act nor was there any evidence of her being entrusted with funds that would warrant a charge of criminal breach of trust. The Court subsequently halted the proceedings against her and scheduled the case for further consideration on November 18.
Cause Title: Pragati Kapoor v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.