In the case, Sri. Amruth Kumar Vs. Smt. Chithra Shetty[1], Hon’ble Justice: Subhash B. Adi, J. had particularly focused upon the literal interpretation of the definition of the word 'respondent' as enshrined in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and said that the word has to be understood to mean only male relative of the husband or male partner of the aggrieved person with whom she is in domestic relationship the said provision does not include the word ‘woman’. He had interpreted the word ‘relative’ to be the one including only the male relative.

Subsequently, the Apex Court found out the difficulties which were occurring due to the definition of ‘respondent’ and gave a convincing view in his decision in the case of Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors[2], the Supreme Court laid down as follows:

“It is true that the expression "female" has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other hand, if the Legislature intended to exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression”

The definition of 'respondent' as defined under Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005 would clearly go to show that any adult male person can only be shown as respondent when the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the Act. Section 31(3) authorizes the Magistrate while framing charges under Section 31(1) can also frame charges under Section 498A IPC or any other provisions of IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as the case may be, if the facts disclose the commission of an offence under Section 498A IPC or any other provisions of IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. That means, the Magistrate can always frame charges against the female relatives of the respondent who committed an offence under Section 498A or any other provision of IPC or the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. It is well settled principle of law that for the interpretation of statute, attempt must be made to give effect to all the provisions.

Even in the recent case of Archana Hemant Naik v. Urmilaben I. Naik[3], in the Maharashtra High Court, it was held that the definition of “respondents” as contained in Section 2(q)[4] does not necessarily only consist of male relatives of the particular male relative. The relative can be a female as well.