A niece of the husband cannot be booked under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 (DV Act), the Bombay High Court recently held.
A bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande said that a niece does not fall within the purview of 'respondent' under Section 2(q) of the DV Act which contemplates only 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.
"Perusal of Section 31 of the DV Act, 2005, would disclose that it is a provision contemplating penalty for breach of protection order by the Respondent and the “Respondent” is defined in the Act, in Section 2(q) to mean, 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," the Court said.
Hence, it halted the proceedings against a woman's niece (petitioner) who was booked under the DV Act for violation of a court order directing the husband of the woman to pay maintenance.
The petition was filed by the niece seeking to quash the FIR lodged against her by her uncle's wife.
The case arose from a contentious domestic situation, where it was alleged that the petitioner and her uncle and conspired to violate a court order regarding maintenance payments.
A Magistrate's court in Pune had directed the man to pay maintenance of ₹30,000 per month to his wife and ₹7,500 to their son until he attained majority.
The wife filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, claiming that the husband failed to pay ₹50,40,000 in maintenance due from 2014 to August 2024.
The FIR, registered on September 18, 2024 alleged that the man transferred significant sums—₹94,00,000 on April 19, 2024, and ₹97,00,000 on April 20, 2024— to his niece's bank account in violation of the protective order issued by the magistrate.
A case was later registered against both the husband and the niece.
The bench noted that the definition of “respondent” under Section 2(q) of the DV Act specifically refers to adult males who have been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person.
The Court emphasized that the petitioner, as a female relative with no direct involvement in the domestic dispute, does not fall within this definition.
The Court also pointed out that there was no evidence to suggest that the petitioner-niece had been entrusted with any funds related to the maintenance payments.
The FIR lacked the basis for implicating her for alleged violation of the court order, the High Court made it clear.
In addition to DV Act, the Court noted that the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) had also been invoked against the petitioner.
In this regard, the Court held,
"In addition, Section 406 is also involved, but we have failed to understand how it could be said that some money or valuable security was entrusted to the petitioner, who has no connection with the dispute between husband and wife, which is pending for adjudication in the DV Court."
Hence, the Court ruled that the registration of the FIR against the petitioner cannot be sustained as she is neither a respondent as contemplated under Section 2(q) of the DV Act nor was she entrusted with any amount, so as to attract the offence of criminal breach of trust.
Hence, it halted the proceedings against the petitioner and posted the case for further consideration on November 18.
Advocate Tapan Thatte appeared for the petitioner.
Additional Public Prosecutor J P Yagnik appeared for the State.
[Read Order]