DV Act (PWDVA) applicable against female relatives of man

According to PWDVA Domestic Violence Act, both male and female relatives of husband /man can be implicated in the complaint by wife/woman. Following are excerpts and my comments from Chennai HC judgement where the judges have dealth at length with the issue of PWDVA interpretation. It may seem a bit long-winded discussion about the point of female relatives of man but probably judges wanted to show complete application and logic for arriving at the decision.

From judgment :
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 28/04/2009

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11066 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2009

1.K.Kamala
2.K.Pasungili
3.C.Vasantharaja
… Petitioners
Vs.

1.M.Parimala
2.The District Social Welfare Office cum
The District Dowry Prohibition Officer,
Dindigul.
… Respondents

…
…initial portion snipped… …
…
The insistence
of the learned counsel for the petitioners would be that when the term
‘respondent’ is defined with a qualification as to be an adult male person in
the Section, the reference “a relative” should also be a male relative of the
husband or male partner and therefore, the case against the 1st and 2nd
petitioners, who are the female members, cannot be sustained. For the purpose of
determining as to whether a female relative of the husband cannot be a
respondent in view of the mentioning of any adult male person in the Section,
and therefore it would also apply to the proviso of 2(q), we have to
necessarily to apply our mind to find the intention of the legislation, from the
Statement of Objects and Reasons for enactment of this Act. In the sub Section
(i) of the 4th paragraph of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it has been
categorically mentioned as follows:
“4.The Bill, Inter alia, seeks to provide for the following:
(i) It covers those women who are or have been in a relationship with the abuser
where both parties have lived together in a shared household and are related by
consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or
adoption. In addition, relationships with family members living together as a
joint family are also included. Even those women who are sisters, widows,
mothers, single women, or living with the abuser are entitled to legal
protection under the proposed legislation. However, whereas the Bill enables
the wife or the female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage to
file a complaint under the proposed enactment against any relative of the
husband or the male partner, it does not enable any female relative of the
husband or the make partner to file a complaint against the wife or the female
partner.”

So above makes it clear that the judges want to deliberate on a point of law — whether the PWDVA enables complaint to be made against female relatives of man. Also it reiterates the well-known point of the PWDVA that is meant for protection of wives from others in a married household. Female relatives of husband/ man are not protected by PWDVA.

The clause 2(q) of PWDVA is given below which explains who can be a ‘respondent’ in PWDVA. It is to be noted that all reliefs and orders including monetary reliefs are available against respondent.

(q) “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;

Again quoting from the judgment:

14. The objects and reasons would categorically show that the aggrieved
wife or female partner can file a complaint against any relative of the husband
or male partner. Thus it helps us to understand the word ‘a relative’ mentioned
in the proviso to section 2(q), could be construed as any relative. Will the
words any relative include both female and male relatives? is an important
question to be decided at this juncture. According to ‘Concise Oxford English
Dictionary – Eleventh Edition’, “any” means, to refer to one or some of a thing
or number of things, and it does not matter how much or how many. As regards,
the meaning of ‘any’, it does not restrict to a singular and a particular
category, it applies to all categories or classes of persons. In this
background, when we approach the object and reasons, it has been categorically
mentioned that the bill was prepared to enable the wife or the female partner
living in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a complaint under the
proposed enactment against any relative of the husband or the male partner, even
though, it does not enable any female relative of the husband or of the male
partner to file a complaint against the wife or the female partner. Therefore,
the Act has been enacted to protect the wife or the female partner, who is
living with her husband or a male partner in a relationship in the nature of
marriage from the harassment or violence emanated from any of the relative of
her husband or male partner living in a relationship in the nature of marriage,
including the adult female persons of the family. The benefits and protection
given under this Act is not available to other female members of the family.
Therefore, the meaning given in the proviso of Section 2(q) would be against any
relative of the husband or male partner which includes, the petitioners 1&2
being the adult female persons as per the allegations made by the first
respondent.

The judgment stops short of saying the exact words if female members can be ‘respondent’ as per 2(q) of PWDVA (Domestic Violence Act) . But apart from that it is clear that the judges in this case aver that female members of husband/man can be brought under 2(q) of PWDVA which defines respondent.

It is a sign of badly drafted or shall we say cleverly drafted law. The Act per say does not say about females being respondents. But it leaves a loophole in 2(q) where it leaves scope for interpretation by the judges. Even in this case the judges have not said female relatives can be respondents based on reading of the Act itself. They had to analyze objects and reasons of the bill to come to this conclusion.

Given other high court judgments have refused to allow female relatives to be made respondents, final conclusion on this question can be reached when Supreme court gives a judgment on this question of law.