“AGGRIEVED PERSON” UNDER PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

Aggrieved Person has been defined under Section 2 (a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as under:

(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.

“Aggrieved person” can be only a woman. A man cannot claim to be aggrieved person under this Act. Such woman should be currently living or should have lived in domestic relationship with the Respondent. The term “domestic relationship” has been defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. The term “respondent” has been defined under Section 2(q) of the Act. Only such women are covered under the definition of “aggrieved person” who have been subjected to domestic violence by the respondent. The term “domestic violence” has been defined under Section 3 of the Act.

Restrictive interpretation cannot be given to term “woman” in the definition of “aggrieved person”. Aggrieved person includes all women who are in domestic relationship with respondent. As per definition of “domestic relationship” under section 2 (f), domestic relationship are relationship between two persons when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Thus not only marital relationship, but a wide range of relationships have been covered under the definition of “domestic relationship”.

The High Court of Kerala in Bismi Sainudheen vs. P.K. Nabeesa Beevi & Ors; 2014 CriLJ 904 has held that definition of “aggrieved person” cannot be interpreted by giving a narrow meaning as “wife” only :

Thus , on a consideration of the circumstances under which the Act promulgated and the objects sought to be achieved, it is crystal clear that the main object is to protect the women as a whole and according to me, that is why the Act itself named and projected as “The protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act”. It is relevant to note that, Section 2 (a) of the Act defines an “aggrieved person” which reads as follows.

“aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the Respondent and who alleges to have been subjected any act of domestic violence by the respondent.

A plain reading of the section indicates, particularly in view of the emphasized portion of the object, that any woman in a domestic relationship with the respondent can invoke the provisions of the Act, provided, the other conditions are satisfied. It is relevant to note that the definitions “aggrieved person” is not confined to a lady, or woman, based upon her marital status alone. So, the definition of “aggrieved person” cannot be interpreted by giving a narrow meaning as “wife” only.”

An Application of only “aggrieved person” under Section 12 of this Act is maintainable before Court. If a person is not covered under the definition of the “aggrieved person”, Application will not be maintainable. Bombay High Court in Mr. Prakash Kumar Singhee vs. Ms. Amrapali Singhee; 2018(2) Crimes333(Bom.) has observed as under:

14. Learned counsel Mrs.Sarnaik is perfectly justified in submitting that the provisions under the said enactment cannot be invoked unless the party alleges an act of domestic violence and approach the Court in the capacity as an “aggrieved person”. Though the application filed by the applicant can be entertained in the pending proceedings under the Specific Relief Act, while entertaining an application which is filed Sub-section-1 of Section- 12, it is imperative that the person approaching the Court is an “aggrieved person”. Though the Family Court in the impugned order has noted the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner-husband that the preliminary requirement of the domestic violence has not been proved by the petitioner and therefore application is not maintainable, the Family Court did not pay any heed to the said submission and rather proceeded to decide the matter on its own merits. The Court has merely noted that as per provision of Section-20 of the D.V. Act aggrieved by had claimed monetary relief for herself and her children however, a whether the applicant is an “aggrieved person” has not at all been considered by the Family Court. Though the Act of Domestic Violence would be established after rendering evidence before the Court, at least the Court prima facie must be satisfied that the person approaching is as an “aggrieved person”. It is not every person who can invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under the 2005 Act, simply for claiming maintenance, as the purpose of the enactment is to protect rights of women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Court has refused to consider the said aspect of the matter.

A woman remains aggrieved person even after decree of judicial separation. Judicial separation does not terminate domestic relationship. Supreme Court in Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr; ( 2016 ) 2 SCC 705 has observed as under:

18. The core issue that is requisite to be addressed is whether the appellant has ceased to be an “aggrieved person” because of the decree of judicial separation. Once the decree of divorce is passed, the status of the parties becomes different, but that is not so when there is a decree for judicial separation. A three-Judge Bench in Jeet Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others though in a different context, adverted to the concept of judicial separation and ruled that the judicial separation creates rights and obligations. A decree or an order for judicial separation permits the parties to live apart. There would be no obligation for either party to cohabit with the other. Mutual rights and obligations arising out of a marriage are suspended. The decree however, does not sever or dissolve the marriage. It affords an opportunity for reconciliation and adjustment. Though judicial separation after a certain period may become a ground for divorce, it is not necessary and the parties are not bound to have recourse to that remedy and the parties can live keeping their status as wife and husband till their lifetime.

________________________________________________