In Section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, “aggrieved person” is defined widely as under”
““aggrieved person” means 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;”
So, any woman can be an aggrieved person.
But, Section 2(q) defined “respondent” in a narrow way, by referring only to “adult male” as shown below:
““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 marriage may also file a complaint against the relative of the husband or the male partner;”
However, in the recent case of Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, (2016) 10 SCC 165 : 2017 Cri LJ 509 : AIR 2016 SC 4774, the Supreme Court held that:
“We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stands deleted.”
In view of this judgment of the Supreme Court, it is now clear that a mother in law can file a case of domestic violence against her daughter in law under the provisions of the above Act, if other ingredients are satisfied, because now the respondent can also be a woman.
Dr. Ashok Dhamija is a New Delhi based Supreme Court Advocate and author of law books. Read more about him by clicking here. List of his Forum Replies. List of his other articles. List of his Quora Answers. List of his YouTube Videos.
.
