HYDERABAD: An aggrieved woman can seek protection under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 even against a female member of the family, provided she satisfies provisions of the Act. Until 2016, the perpetrator of violence against women under the Act was considered to be only “adult male person”. Dealing with a case filed by a daughter-in-law seeking to quash the proceedings pending against her before a lower court based on a complaint lodged by her mother-in-law, Justice Suresh Kumar Kait of the Hyderabad High Court allowed the petition on the ground that it did not fulfil the conditions required under Section 2 (f) of the Act. “It is a sheer misuse of the protection guaranteed under the Act”, the judge observed.
As for the case, the mother-in-law filed a case before the lower court, seeking protection against her son and her daughter-in-law who trying to evict her from the schedule house. She also sought payment of an amount of Rs 5,000 per month towards her maintenance. Prior to her son’s marriage, she and her husband had executed a relinquishment deed for the schedule house in favour of her son who had to submit security to his employer. Later, he was married to the petitioner of the present case.
The allegation of the mother-in-law is that after execution of the relinquishment deed, her son left her and her husband, and went to another state where he is working. He neglected to look after them and further demanded that the parents vacate the house as he intended to sell the same. He left his wife (petitioner) to reside at her parent’s house and instructed her to make his parents vacate the house. So she used to visit her in-laws’ house and demand that they vacate it. She also threatened to see her (mother-in-law) end in the event of staying on in the said house. As her husband fell sick due to old age, the mother-in-law filed a complaint under the provisions of the Act seeking protection against their son and daughter-in-law, and for maintenance.
Opposing it, the daughter-in-law moved the High Court. The petitioner’s counsel contended that the complainant (mother-in-law) did not fall within the definition of “aggrieved person” as defined under the Act since there was no domestic relationship between her and her daughter-in-law (petitioner). As per Section 2 (f) of the Act, to have domestic relation the two persons concerned should live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared accommodation. The complaint against petitioner was not maintainable since she was a woman, he argued. Even a woman can be booked under Domestic Violence Act. Therefore, they were entitled to protection against them under the Act, they noted.
Justice Kait, while relying on a Supreme Court judgment in the Hiral P Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora case of 2016, held that the aggrieved person can seek protection under the Act even against a female member, provided she satisfied the other provisions of the Act. With regard to the issue of domestic relationship between the petitioner (daughter-in-law) and the respondent (mother-in-law), the judge opined that when the petitioner was not in domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, there was no justification on the part of the respondent to implicate her daughter-in-law.
“As the petitioner herein had not been living or lived with the respondent, the case cannot be filed under the Act, as it does not fulfil the conditions required under Section 2 (f) of the Act”, the judge opined and granted relief to the petitioner by quashing the proceedings pending against her before lower court.Box’Domestic relationship’ As per Section 2 (f) of Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to have domestic relation the two persons should live together or have, at any point of time, lived in a shared accommodation.
Legal view
Terms of Act
The case filed against a woman will not sustain if the woman is not in a domestic relation with the aggrieved person