Judgment Heard Mr. Pawan Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Adhikari, Assistant Government Advocate for the State and Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for private respondent. 2. Petitioners who are in-laws of the respondents, have challenged the proceedings pending against them in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19,20,21 and 22.of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 3. The main grievance of the petitioners are that petitioner no. 1 is the father-in-law, petitioner no. 2 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no. 3 is the sister-in-law (husband's sister) and petitioners no. 4 & 5 are brother-in-law of the respondent. According to the petitioners, petitioners cannot be impleaded as respondent in application under Section 12 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying on Section 12 of the Act, vehemently argued that no woman can be made respondent in an application under Section 12 of the Act. 4. His second limb of argument is that Protection Officer has not submitted his report as per Rule 5 in Form 1. Hence, entire proceedings pending against the petitioners under Protection• of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 stand vitiated. 5. Now, I have to decide first question raised by learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether woman can be made respondent in an application/complaint filed under the provision of the Protection of Women 'from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 6. Before answering the question raised, I would like to discuss certain provisions of the Act, which are being reproduced herein as under: "2(f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related to consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; 2(q) "respondent" means 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 : Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. 3. 3. Definition of Domestic violence: For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it:- (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or metal, to the aggrieved person. 12. Application to Magistrate: (1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such applications, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider. 18. 18. Protection orders: The Magistrate may, after giving the aggrieved person and the respondent an opportunity of being heard and on being prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken place or is likely to take place, pass a protection order in favour of the aggrieved person and prohibit the respondent from - (a) committing any act of domestic violence; (b) aiding or abetting in the commission of acts of domestic violence; (c) entering the place of employment of the aggrieved person or, if the person aggrieved is a child, its school or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person; (d) attempting to communicate in any form, whatsoever, with the aggrieved person, including personal, oral or written or electronic or telephonic contact; (e) alienating any assets, operating bank lockers or bank accounts used or held or enjoyed by both the parties, jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent, including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately by them without the leave of the Magistrate; (f) causing violence to the dependants, other relatives or any person who give the aggrieved person assistance from domestic violence; (g) committing any other act as specified in the protection order. 19. Residence orders: (1) While disposing of an application under sub-sec. (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order- (a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household; (b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household; (c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides; (d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing of the shared household or encumbering the same; (e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or (f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstances so require: Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman. (3) The Magistrate may require from the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence. (6) While making an order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties. 21. Custody orders: Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Magistrate may, at any stage of hearing of the application for protection order or for any other relief under this Act grant temporary custody of any child or children of the aggrieved person or the person making an application on her behalf and specify, if necessary, the arrangements for visit of such child or children by the respondent : Provided that if the Magistrate is of the opinion that visit of the respondent may be harmful to the interests of the child or children, the Magistrate shall refuse to allow such visit. 7. It is fairly well settled that reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is permissible for understanding the background, the antecedent state of affairs, the surrounding circumstances in relation to the statute and the evil, which the statute was sought to remedy. Keeping in view of the same for understanding the above provisions, it is necessary to notice the scheme of the Act as explained in the Statement of Objects and Reasons under Bill No. 116 of 2005 for passing the Act was placed before the Parliament are as under: Domestic violence is undoubtedly a human rights issue and serious deterrent to development. The Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995) have acknowledged this. The United Nations Committee on Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in its General Recommendation No. XII (1989) has recommended that State parties should act to protect women against violence of any kind especially that occurring within the family. 2. The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under Section 498~A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety. 3. 2. The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under Section 498~A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety. 3. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. 4. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to provide for the following : (i) it covers those women who are or have been in a relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption. In addition, relationships with family members living together as a joint family are also included. Even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single women, or living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the proposed legislation. However, whereas the Bill enables the wife or the female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a complaint under the proposed enactment against any relative of the husband or the male partner, it does not enable any female relative of the husband or the male partner to file a complaint against the wife or the female partner". 8. The definition "respondent as defined under Section 2(q) 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. But the Proviso, of Section 2(q) says that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against the relatives of the husband or the male partner. If Court confines meaning of respondent only to the male persons. "any relative" of the husband will become redundant. 9. Relief provided under sub-Section 1 (b) of Section 19 cannot be granted against a woman in view of the Proviso of Section 19 of the Act. If Court confines meaning of respondent only to the male persons. "any relative" of the husband will become redundant. 9. Relief provided under sub-Section 1 (b) of Section 19 cannot be granted against a woman in view of the Proviso of Section 19 of the Act. However, for any other relief provided under the Act, no such bar is provided. It is competent for the Magistrate to pass orders against the relatives of the husband including a female person. The reasoning being if the property stands in the name of in-laws of the aggrieved person divided among joint family and a portion of which is in the share of the husband of the applicant and same is in occupation of the applicant/complainant, a person in whose name the property stands, i.e. relatives of the respondent can also be restrained-from dispossession of the person aggrieved or entering any portion of the shared household where the aggrieved person reside. 10. Second example would be if in a joint family property some of the shareholders are female, then also an appropriate relief under Section 19 of the Act can be granted against such female, relatives of the husband as provided under Section 19 of the Act, except relief of Section 19(1) (b). 11. Likewise, as in the present case complainant/aggrieved person is claiming relief pertaining to Shri Dhana which is said to be in possession of the respondents of the application, then, of course, an appropriate relief can be granted against the relatives of the husband including woman under Section 18(e) of the Act. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Ajay Kumar Vs. Asha Sharma reported in 2008 Criminal Law Journal page no. 264 and argued that Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that women cannot be made respondent in view of the definition of respondent coming in Section 2(q) of the Act. 13. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I do not agree with the Judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter (supra). I hold that for all reliefs except under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act, woman, relative of the husband, can be made respondent and there is no bar in making the woman respondent. 14. 13. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I do not agree with the Judgment passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter (supra). I hold that for all reliefs except under Section 19(1)(b) of the Act, woman, relative of the husband, can be made respondent and there is no bar in making the woman respondent. 14. Now, coming to the present case, the perusal of the application moved before the Magistrate under Section 12 shows that respondent herein is coming with the contention that her Shri Dhana in possession of the respondents (petitioners herein), then relief under Section 18 can only be granted when these petitioners are before the Magistrate. Hence, I do not find any illegality in making the petitioners, respondent in the main application, 15. Next question for the determination is as to whether provisions of Rule 5 read with Section 12(1) of the Act are mandatory and non-compliance of which vitiate the proceedings under the Act. Rule 5 of the Act reads as under: "5. Domestic incident reports- (1) Upon receipt of a complaint of domestic violence, the Protection Officer shall prepare a domestic incident report in Form I and submit the same to the Magistrate and forward copies thereof to the police officer-in-charge of the police station within the local limits of jurisdiction of which the domestic violence. alleged to have been committed has taken place and to the service providers in that area. (2) Upon a request of any aggrieved person, a service provider may record a domestic incident report in Form I and forward a copy thereof to the Magistrate and the Protection Officer having jurisdiction in the area where the domestic violence is alleged to have taken place." 16. Section 12(1) of the Act reads as under: "12. Application to Magistrate- (1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act: Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider." 17. From the perusal of the provisions made under Section 12(1) read with Rule 5, I am of the view that submission of the report in Form 1 is only procedural in nature. From the perusal of the provisions made under Section 12(1) read with Rule 5, I am of the view that submission of the report in Form 1 is only procedural in nature. If Protection Officer fails to submit his report strictly as per Rule 5 in Form 1, then it is always open to the Magistrate to call for further report from the Protection Officer in the Form 1. However, in any event, Magistrate should not throw the application in dustbin only on the ground of non-compliance of the Rule 5 of the Act. If report is not submitted in Form 1 as provided under Rule 5, then claimant/aggrieved person would be deprived from justice for the fault of the Protection Officer, which cannot be said to be justified. Moreover, this is settled principle of law that technicalities should not come in the way of dispensing justice. 18. Meaning thereby purpose of report of the Protection Officer is to assist the Magistrate. Hence procedure error committed by the Protection Officer in submitting the report should not be made ground to reject the application moved under Section 12 before the Magistrate. 19. A plain reading of the Section 12 of the Act shows that the aggrieved person can file complaint directly to the Magistrate concerned. This is the choice of the aggrieved person that instead of directly approaching the Magistrate, he or she can approach the Protection Officer and in case of emergency, the service provider and with their help to the Magistrate concerned. The word "or" used in Section 12 of the Act is very material, which provides a choice to the aggrieved person to approach in the aforesaid manner. There is no illegality in directly approaching the Magistrate for taking cognizance in the matter. This is for the Magistrate concerned to take help of Protection Officer and service provider after receiving the complaint provided, he feels it necessary for final disposal of the dispute between the parties. If the parties concerned or Magistrate takes help of the Protection Officer, he will submit a Domestic Incident Report to the Magistrate concerned. 20. However, from the perusal of the report, I find that report submitted by the Protection Officer is not in the Form 1 as provided under Rule 5 of the Act. If the parties concerned or Magistrate takes help of the Protection Officer, he will submit a Domestic Incident Report to the Magistrate concerned. 20. However, from the perusal of the report, I find that report submitted by the Protection Officer is not in the Form 1 as provided under Rule 5 of the Act. Hence, in the present scenario Magistrate should call for the fresh report from the Protection Officer on the Form 1. 21. In view of discussions made herein above, petition has no merit, hence is dismissed.