A bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande was hearing a petition filed by Pragati Kapoor, the niece of Manishchandra Bihari Kapoor, seeking to quash an FIR lodged against her by Kapoor’s wife.
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that a husband’s niece cannot be charged under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 (DV Act).
A bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande stated that a niece does not qualify as a ‘respondent’ under Section 2(q) of the DV Act, which defines a respondent as only an adult male who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person seeks relief under this Act.
“Perusal of Section 31 of the DV Act, 2005, would disclose that it is a provision contemplating penalty for breach of protection order by the Respondent and the “Respondent” is defined in the Act, in Section 2(q) to mean, 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,” the Court said.
Consequently, the court suspended the proceedings against the woman’s niece (petitioner), who had been charged under the DV Act for breaching a court order that required the woman’s husband to pay maintenance.
The niece filed a petition to have the FIR filed against her by her uncle’s wife dismissed.
This case stemmed from a contentious domestic dispute, in which it was alleged that the petitioner and her uncle conspired to violate a court order related to maintenance payments.
A Magistrate’s court in Pune ordered the man to pay monthly maintenance of ₹30,000 to his wife and ₹7,500 for their son until he reaches adulthood.
The wife submitted a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, alleging that the husband had not paid ₹50,40,000 in maintenance owed from 2014 to August 2024.
The FIR, filed on September 18, 2024, claimed that the man transferred substantial amounts—₹94,00,000 on April 19, 2024, and ₹97,00,000 on April 20, 2024—to his niece’s bank account, which violated the protective order issued by the magistrate.
Subsequently, a case was filed against both the husband and the niece.
The bench observed that the definition of “respondent” in Section 2(q) of the DV Act explicitly pertains to adult males who have been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person.
The Court underscored that the petitioner, being a female relative with no direct participation in the domestic conflict, does not fit this definition.
Additionally, the Court noted that there was no evidence indicating that the petitioner-niece had been given any funds pertaining to the maintenance payments.
The High Court clarified that the FIR did not provide sufficient grounds to implicate her in the alleged violation of the court order.
The Court also noted that the charge of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) had been brought against the petitioner, in addition to the provisions of the DV Act.
In this regard, the Court held,
“In addition, Section 406 is also involved, but we have failed to understand how it could be said that some money or valuable security was entrusted to the petitioner, who has no connection with the dispute between husband and wife, which is pending for adjudication in the DV Court.”
Therefore, the Court ruled that the FIR against the petitioner could not be upheld, as she is neither a respondent as defined 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 suspended the proceedings against the petitioner and scheduled the case for further consideration on November 18.
