G.S. Sarraf, J.
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer that the complaint No. 164/2007 filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners under Sections 12, 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') be quashed.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondent No. 2 left the house of the petitioners on 24.5.2006 finally and thereafter no act or omission was committed by any of the petitioners with respect to the respondent No. 2, therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable in this case because the Act has come into force on 26.10.2006. He has argued that the Act cannot be given retrospective effect in view of the provisions contained in Article 20 of the Constitution 6f India, He has next contended that under Section 2(q) of the Act the proceedings can be initiated only against adult male person and, therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners Sushila and Mamta and liable to be quashed. He has placed reliance on 2008 Cr.L.J. 264.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that as per the allegation contained in the complaint the respondent No. 2 was turned out from her in-law's house on 21.10.2007 and thereafter she is unable to maintain herself and thus the acts of the petitioners are continuing and, therefore, it cannot be said that the acts and omissions by the petitioners have been committed before coming into force of the Act. She has contended that under the proviso of Section 2(q) of the Act wife can file complaint against any male or female relative of the husband.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has said that the respondent No. 2 left the house of the petitioners on 24.5.2006 finally and thereafter she never returned whereas in the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 it is alleged that she was turned out of the house on 21.10.2007 and thereafter she is unable to maintain herself. In view of these opposite assertions it is for the trial Court to decide as to whether the acts or omissions by the petitioners have been committed prior to the coming into force of the Act or after the Act became operative and only thereafter it can decide as to whether the provisions contained in Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India are applicable or not in this case.
5. Section 2(q) of the Act runs 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 a marriage may also Tile a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.
6. According to Section 2(q) of the Act 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. It only connotes that while wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may file a complaint against her adult husband or against her adult male partner but the husband or the male partner cannot, initiate proceedings against the adult wife or the adult female partner. Proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act says 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. Section 2(q) of the Act and Its proviso if read together nowhere suggest that the relative of the husband or the male partner has to be a male. In proviso to Section 2(q) of the Act the word is 'relative' and not 'male relative'. I am therefore, of the opinion that a female relative Is not excluded from the definition of respondent contained in Section 2(q) of the Act.
In view of the above discussion I find the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioners devoid of any merit. I also do not agree with the view taken by Hon'ble Single Judge of M.P. High Court in 2008 Cr.L.J. 264.
Consequently, the petition stands dismissed.