Husband's Extra-Marital Partner Can't Be Made Respondent In Domestic Violence Act Proceedings : Karnataka High Court

A single bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said "Section 2(q) of the Act makes it clear that only those persons who have been in the domestic relationship can be made as respondent. In this case as argued by the petitioner's counsel, the allegation against the petitioner is that the 1st respondent's husband was suspected to be having an illegal relationship with the petitioner and he thought of bringing the petitioner to his house. Except this allegation,there are no other allegations against the petitioner which indicate that she too joined with the husband of the 1st respondent in harassing her. Therefore the petitioner does not come within the scope of respondent as envisaged under Section 2(q) of the Act. Making her respondent in the application filed under Section 12 of the Act is unwarranted."

Advocate M.H.Prakash, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that she has been unnecessarily made a party by the 1st respondent in her application before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Further, it was submitted that the petitioner herein should not have been made a party in the application filed under Section 12 of the Act as she does not fall within the meaning of respondent as mentioned under Section 2(q) of the Act. So far as the petitioner is concerne,d it cannot be said that she has committed domestic violence to prosecute her to claim any relief from her. In fact, if the reliefs claimed in the application made under Section 12 of the Act are perused, no relief is claimed against the petitioner and therefore the proceedings against her requires to be quashed.

The wife opposed the plea stating that "Because of the illegal relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent's husband, the 1st respondent used to be harassed. Domestic violence has been committed on the instigation of the petitioner and this is the reason for making her party in the application filed under Section 12 of the Act."

Court findings:

The court referred to section 2 (q) of the Act which reads thus:

Section 2(q) '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 file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner."

The Court said that the woman with whom the husband was allegedly having an affair will not come under the definition of 'respondent'.

It then said "There cannot be any proceedings against her (Petitioner) under the provisions of the Act. Therefore it is to be stated that this petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in Crl.Misc.45/2021 on the file of JMFC, Arakalagudu are quashed as against the petitioner only."