2011GLH(2)1111, (2011)2GLR1111(SC), 2011(2)JCC717(SC), JT2011(3)SC265, 2011(2)KCCRSN166, 2011 (1) KHC 515, 2011(1)KLJ57, 2011-4-LW328, 2011-2-LW(Crl)190, 2011(3)MPHT190, 2011(1)N.C.C.691, 2011(2)PLJR71, 2011(2)RCR(Civil)1, 2011(1)RCR(Criminal)884, 2011(2)SCALE94, (2011)3SCC650, (2011)2SCC(Cri)21, [2011]2SCR261, 2011(1)UJ571, 2012(2)ALT(Cri)391, 2011(59)BLJR321, 2011 (1) CG.L.R.W. 329, 2011(1) CGBCLJ 40, 2011CriLJ1687, 2011(2)CTC455, II(2011)DMC811, 2011(1)KLT609(SC)

It is true that the expression “female” has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other hand, if the Legislature intended to exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression 12“relative”, nor has the said expression been specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only.  In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In our view, both the Sessions Judge and the High Court went wrong in holding otherwise, possibly being influenced by the definition of the expression “respondent” in the main body of Section 2(q) of the aforesaid Act. The Appeal, therefore, succeeds. The judgments and orders, both of the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati, dated 15th July, 2009 and the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 5th March, 2010, in Crl. Writ Petition No.588 of 2009 are set 13aside. Consequently, the trial Court shall also proceed against the said Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the complaint filed by the Appellant.