Facts
The case happened when Sandhya Manoj Wankhade, the appellant, had lodged a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDVA) against her husband and his female relatives, i.e., his mother and sister. The Magistrate issued interim relief. But the Sessions Court and the Bombay High Court decided that female relatives could not be made respondents under the PWDVA based on Section 2(q), which had defined a “respondent” as an “adult male person.”
Aggrieved, the appellant went to the Supreme Court challenging the non-inclusion of female in-laws in the proceedings, arguing that such an interpretation goes against the object of the PWDVA.
Issues
The Supreme Court posed the following questions of law:
- Whether female relatives of a husband can be made respondents under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
- Whether female relatives of a husband can be made respondents under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005?
- Whether the proviso to Section 2(q) permits the inclusion of women relatives in the complaint?
Analysis
The Supreme Court adopted a purposive construction of the Domestic Violence Act with a focus on the act’s aim of safeguarding women against abuse in domestic environments.
- Statutory Interpretation
The Court observed that although Section 2(q) defines a “respondent” as an “adult male person,” the proviso to the section explicitly enables complaints against any husband’s relative or male partner without gender determination. The Court held that this proviso should be given substantial effect.
- Purposive Interpretation of the Act
The Court pointed out that the PWDVA is a beneficial legislation to safeguard women from all types of domestic violence, including familial abuse by a female relative. To confine the scope to male respondents only would negate the purpose of the Act.
(c) Gender-Neutral Application to ‘Relative’
The word “relative” was gender-neutral in its natural meaning. Thus, mothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, or any other female relatives who are guilty of domestic violence can also be regarded as respondents.
(d) Scope of Judicial Review
The High Court’s interpretation was too narrow. The Supreme Court made clear that courts are required to interpret useful statutes such as PWDVA in accordance with their aim, and not in a strict or literal sense that overcomes legislative intent.
Judgment
The Supreme Court overturned the decision of the High Court and held that:
- The female relatives of the husband can be treated as respondents under the PWDVA.
- The provison to Section 2(q) broadens the ambit of the word “respondent” to cover female relatives of the husband or male partner.
- The case was remitted to the Magistrate’s Court to proceed against all the respondents mentioned by name, including the mother-in-law and sister-in-law.
Conclusion
This milestone judgment expands the gamut of protection under the Domestic Violence Act by enabling women to lodge complaints against both male and female relatives of the husband. The ruling upholds a progressive, purposive, and gender-insensitive approach to the law, consonant with its goal of securing protection and justice for women within domestic contexts. The ruling makes sure that perpetrators of domestic violence are not able to avoid liability on grounds of gender, thereby promoting the cause of women’s rights. It is also a binding precedent, which will direct future interpretations of Section 2(q) of the PWDVA. The case is an important assertion of gender justice and statutory interpretation in harmony with constitutional principles.
