The Bombay High Court recently ruled that a niece of a husband cannot be charged under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The decision was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande, who clarified that a niece does not qualify as a “respondent” under Section 2(q) of the DV Act. This section defines a “respondent” as an adult male who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom relief is sought under the Act.
The court explained that Section 31 of the DV Act outlines penalties for violating protection orders by a “respondent.” As defined in Section 2(q), the term refers to adult males in a domestic relationship with the complainant, making the inclusion of a niece in such cases inappropriate.
As a result, the court halted proceedings against a woman’s niece (the petitioner), who had been charged under the DV Act for allegedly violating a court order requiring the woman’s husband to pay maintenance. The niece had sought to quash the FIR lodged against her by her uncle’s wife.
The case originated from a contentious domestic dispute where it was alleged that the petitioner, along with her uncle, conspired to violate a court order concerning maintenance payments. A Pune Magistrate’s court had ordered the man to pay ₹30,000 per month to his wife and ₹7,500 to their son until he reached adulthood. The wife later filed a complaint under the DV Act, claiming unpaid maintenance of ₹50,40,000 from 2014 to August 2024.
The FIR, filed on September 18, 2024, alleged that the husband transferred large sums of money—₹94,00,000 on April 19, 2024, and ₹97,00,000 on April 20, 2024—to his niece’s bank account, in violation of the protective order issued by the Magistrate. Both the husband and the niece were charged in the case.
The bench highlighted that the definition of “respondent” under Section 2(q) of the DV Act pertains specifically to adult males who are or were in a domestic relationship with the complainant. The court stressed that the petitioner, being a female relative without direct involvement in the domestic dispute, does not meet this definition.
The court also pointed out the lack of evidence showing that the petitioner-niece had received any funds related to the maintenance payments. It emphasized that the FIR did not provide a sufficient basis to implicate her for the alleged violation of the court order.
Additionally, the petitioner faced charges under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for criminal breach of trust. However, the court questioned how the petitioner could be accused of being entrusted with money or valuable security when she had no connection to the ongoing dispute between the husband and wife in the DV Court.
As a result, the court ruled that the FIR against the petitioner could not be upheld, as she neither qualified as a “respondent” under Section 2(q) of the DV Act nor was she entrusted with any funds that would warrant a charge of criminal breach of trust. Consequently, the court stayed the proceedings against the petitioner and scheduled further consideration of the case for November 18.
Advocate Tapan Thatte represented the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor J.P. Yagnik appeared for the State.
