Husband’s Niece Cannot Be Implicated in Domestic Violence Case: Bombay High Court
A bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande recently heard a petition filed by Pragati Kapoor, the niece of Manishchandra Bihari Kapoor. She sought to quash an FIR lodged against her by Kapoor’s wife. The Bombay High Court ruled that a husband’s niece cannot be booked under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 (DV Act).
The bench stated that a niece does not fall within the definition of ‘respondent’ under Section 2(q) of the DV Act. This section pertains specifically to adult males who are or have been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom relief is sought under the Act.
The Court explained, “A perusal of Section 31 of the DV Act, 2005, reveals that it describes penalties for breaching a protection order by the Respondent. The term ‘Respondent’ is defined in Section 2(q) to mean any adult male who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person.”
As a result, the Court halted the proceedings against the woman’s niece (the petitioner), who had been implicated under the DV Act for allegedly violating a court order that directed the husband to pay maintenance.
This case arose from a contentious domestic situation where the petitioner and her uncle allegedly conspired to violate a court order regarding maintenance payments. A Magistrate’s court in Pune 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 filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, claiming that the husband had failed to pay ₹50,40,000 in maintenance due from 2014 to August 2024.
The FIR, registered on September 18, 2024, alleged that the husband transferred significant sums—₹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. Subsequently, a case was registered against both the husband and the niece.
The bench highlighted that the definition of “respondent” under Section 2(q) of the DV Act specifically refers only to adult males involved in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, being a female relative with no direct involvement in the domestic dispute, does not fall under this definition.
Furthermore, the Court noted that there was no evidence indicating that the petitioner-niece had been entrusted with any funds related to the maintenance payments. As such, the FIR lacked a basis for implicating her in the violation of the court order.
The Court also acknowledged that the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) had been invoked against the petitioner. However, it stated, “In addition, Section 406 is also involved, but we fail to understand how it could be argued that money or valuable securities were entrusted to the petitioner, who has no connection with the dispute between the husband and wife, which is still pending in the DV Court.”
Consequently, the Court ruled that the registration of the FIR against the petitioner cannot be sustained, as she is neither a respondent as defined under Section 2(q) of the DV Act, nor was she entrusted with any amount in a manner that would constitute a criminal breach of trust.
The Court thus halted the proceedings against the petitioner and scheduled the case for further consideration on November 18. Advocate Tapan Thatte represented the petitioner, while Additional Public Prosecutor J. P. Yagnik appeared for the State.
Bar and bench
