WHETHER A FEMALE MEMBER CAN BE A RESPONDENT IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE?

The term respondent has been defined in   Sec.2.(q) of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 which speaks as under-

“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 a relative of the husband or the male partner.

In the case of “D. Veluswamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal (Crl.Appeal No.2028-2029 of 2010) Supreme Court”. The Supreme Court has given, a wider meaning to an “aggrieved person” under sec. 2 (a) of the PWDV Act 2005. The Court enumerated five ingredients of a live in relationship as follows: 1.Both the parties must be as husband and wife and are recognized as husband and wife in front of society 2.They must be of a valid legal age of marriage 3.They should qualify to enter into marriage eg. None of the partner should have a souse living at the time of entering into relationship.4.They must have voluntarily cohabited for a significant period of time 5.They must have lived together in a shared household. The Supreme Court also observed that not all live-­in­-relationships   will   amount   to   a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of PWDV Act. To get such benefit the conditions mentioned above shall be fulfilled and this has to be proved by evidence. Further in the case of “ Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade (2011) 3 SCC 650 Supreme Court”  it has been held by the Supreme Court that the term “respondent” includes the term “female relative” .The legislature never intended to exclude female relative of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Act. In the case of  “Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V.Sarma (Crl.A. No.2009 of 2013) decided on 26.11.2013 Supreme Court”  a land mark judgment which defined the scope and ambit of Sec. 2 (f) of PWDV Act 2005. In this Case it has been held that a woman who was in a live-in relationship with a married man for 14 years was not accorded the fruits of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.It is further held that such a live-in relationship fell outside the purview of 'relationship in the nature of marriage.  While arriving at this conclusion, which has far-reaching implications on rights of aggrieved persons in non-matrimonial relationships, the Supreme Court laid down various criteria for the purpose of determining as to what kind of relationships would fall within the ambit of the expression 'relationship in the nature of marriage' as worded in the section2(f) of PWDV Act.2005.

Finaly in the case of “Hiral P. Harsora and others Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and others, (2016) 10 SCC 165 Supreme Court”.  The Supreme Court has struck down the expression “adult male”. The Supreme Court held that “adult male person” restricting the meaning of respondent in Section 2(q) to only “adult male person” is not based on any intelligible differentia having rational nexus with object sought to be achieved. Hence, it is now permissible under definition of Section 2(q) to include females also. Consequently, the respondent can also be a female in domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The next definition, which is relevant to be noticed is Section 2(s), which defines shared household. Shared household is defined in following words:-  "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the  aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.

Therefore the law has been settled on this score that the respondent can be a female also if she is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the PWDV ACT 2005.