Domestic violence relief proceedings: respondent definition limits maintainability, while notice-stage procedural objections do not justify quashing.

Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the term "respondent" for relief proceedings is governed by the main part of section 2(q), which is directed to an adult male person in a domestic relationship. The proviso does not enlarge maintainability under section 12 against persons outside that class, so relief proceedings could not continue against female petitioners who were not adult male respondents. Procedural objections at the notice stage, including recording of statements and the absence of a Protection Officer's report, did not by themselves justify quashing, because the Magistrate may follow an appropriate procedure and the report is relevant before final disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was maintainable against the female petitioners who were not adult male persons; and (ii) whether the proceedings could be quashed on the grounds that the Magistrate recorded the respondent's statement, did not call for a Protection Officer's report, and that penal relief had been sought in the application.

Issue (i): whether an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was maintainable against the female petitioners who were not adult male persons

Analysis: The definition of "respondent" in Section 2(q) is primarily confined to an adult male person in a domestic relationship against whom relief is sought under the Act. The proviso extends the reach of a complaint by an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage against a relative of the husband or male partner, but that extension is linked to complaint proceedings for offences under the Act and does not enlarge the main rule governing reliefs under Section 12. Reading the scheme of the Act, the Court treated the relief provisions under Sections 18 to 22 as being available against the respondent contemplated by the main part of Section 2(q). On that construction, proceedings under Section 12 for relief could not be maintained against persons who were not adult male respondents.

Conclusion: The application under Section 12 was not maintainable against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, and the proceedings against them were liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): whether the proceedings could be quashed on the grounds that the Magistrate recorded the respondent's statement, did not call for a Protection Officer's report, and that penal relief had been sought in the application

Analysis: An application under Section 12 is not a complaint, so the recording of statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not required as a precondition for notice; however, the Magistrate's adoption of such a step did not justify quashing because Section 28 permits the Magistrate to follow an appropriate procedure for disposal of an application under the Act. The proviso to Section 12 requires the Magistrate to take into consideration any domestic incident report received from the Protection Officer or service provider before passing a final order, but it does not make it obligatory to call for such a report before issuing notice. A prayer to penalize the petitioners, though unnecessary at that stage, was also not a ground for quashing; at most, such a relief could be declined.

Conclusion: These grounds did not warrant quashing of the proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded only to the extent that proceedings under the Act could not continue against the female petitioners, while the remaining objections to the notice stage were rejected and the Magistrate was directed to proceed in accordance with the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: For relief proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the term "respondent" is governed by the main part of Section 2(q), and the proviso does not enlarge maintainability against persons outside that class; procedural objections relating to notice-stage steps or non-calling of a Protection Officer's report do not, by themselves, justify quashing.

---