Karnataka HC: Husband's Extra-Marital Partner Can't Be Made Respondent In Domestic Violence Act Proceedings

  Section 2(q) of the Act makes it clear that only those

persons who have been in the domestic relationship can be

made as respondent. In this case as argued by the

petitioner’s counsel, the allegation against the petitioner is

that the 1st respondent’s husband was suspected to be

having illegal relationship with the petitioner and he thought

of bringing the petitioner to his house. Except this allegation

there are no other allegations against the petitioner which

indicate that she too joined with the husband of the 1st

respondent in harassing her. Therefore the petitioner does

not come within the scope of respondent as envisaged under

Section 2(q) of the Act. Making her respondent in the

application filed under Section 12 of the Act is unwarranted.

There cannot be any proceedings against her under the

provisions of the Act. Therefore it is to be stated that this

petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly petition is

allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in

Crl.Misc.45/2021 on the file of JMFC, Arakalagudu are

quashed as against the petitioner only.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2148 OF 2021

Smt. Harini H. Vs  Smt. Kavya H. @ Sangeetha,

BEFORE

 MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

Heard both sides.

2. The argument of the petitioner’s counsel is that the

petitioner has been unnecessarily made a party by the 1st

respondent in her application before the Magistrate under

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short). He submits that the only

allegation found is that the 1st respondent suspected her

husband to be having illegal relationship with the petitioner

and he thought of bringing her to his house. Therefore he

argued that the petitioner herein should not have been made

a party in the application filed under Section 12 of the Act as

she does not fall within the meaning of respondent as

mentioned under Section 2(q) of the Act. So far as the

petitioner is concerned it cannot be said that she has

committed domestic violence to prosecute her to claim any

relief from her. In fact if the reliefs claimed in the application

made under Section 12 of the Act are perused, no relief is

claimed against the petitioner and therefore the proceedings

against her requires to be quashed.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

no.1, i.e., the contesting respondent submits that because of

the illegal relationship between the petitioner and the 1st

respondent’s husband, the 1st respondent used to be

harassed. Domestic violence has been committed on the

instigation of the petitioner and this is the reason for making

her party in the application filed under Section 12 of the Act.

4. Now, if the definition of domestic relationship as

mentioned under Section 2(f) of the Act is perused,

2(g). ‘domestic relationship’ means a

relationship between two persons who live or

have, at any point of time, lived together in a

shared household, when they are related by

consanguinity, marriage, or through a

relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or

are family members living together as a joint

family;

Section 2(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.”

5. Section 2(q) of the Act makes it clear that only those

persons who have been in the domestic relationship can be

made as respondent. In this case as argued by the

petitioner’s counsel, the allegation against the petitioner is

that the 1st respondent’s husband was suspected to be

having illegal relationship with the petitioner and he thought

of bringing the petitioner to his house. Except this allegation

there are no other allegations against the petitioner which

indicate that she too joined with the husband of the 1st

respondent in harassing her. Therefore the petitioner does

not come within the scope of respondent as envisaged under

Section 2(q) of the Act. Making her respondent in the

application filed under Section 12 of the Act is unwarranted.

There cannot be any proceedings against her under the

provisions of the Act. Therefore it is to be stated that this

petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly petition is

allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in

Crl.Misc.45/2021 on the file of JMFC, Arakalagudu are

quashed as against the petitioner only.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Print Page