JUDGMENT : Harsha Devani, J. By this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 vide Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.676/2010 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') qua the applicant. 2. The respondent No.2 herein filed an application/complaint under section 12 of the Act in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot against her husband and her in-laws, in all against ten respondents including the present petitioner. The allegations made in the complaint are mainly in respect of the harassment meted out to her by the other respondents who are her husband and her in-laws. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, the allegations are contained in paragraph 2 and 11 of the complaint wherein it is alleged that the respondent No.1 despite being lawfully married to the respondent No.2 has kept the petitioner in his house as a kept woman. The sole allegation made against the present petitioner is that despite the fact that there is a subsisting marriage between the respondent No.2 - complainant and her husband, who is the respondent No.1 in the complaint, he was unlawfully living with the petitioner herein in his house. 3. Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the allegations made in the application under section 12 of the Act qua the present petitioner are false and vexatious. It was submitted that assuming that the said allegations made in the complaint are true, even then, all that is stated is that the respondent No.1 in the original application, viz. the husband of the original applicant was keeping the petitioner as a kept woman despite a subsisting marriage with the respondent No.2 - original applicant. Referring to the provisions of clause (q) of section 2 of the Act which defines “respondent” it was pointed out that “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 the Act. Referring to the provisions of clause (q) of section 2 of the Act which defines “respondent” it was pointed out that “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 the Act. The proviso thereto lays down 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. It was submitted that clause (q) of section 2 of the Act envisages the “respondent” to be a male adult person and that a complaint may also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. Insofar as a female is concerned, she may be joined as a respondent only if she is a relative of the husband or the male partner. It was submitted that considering the averments made in the application under section 12 of the Act, it is apparent that the petitioner herein does not fall within the ambit of a relative of the husband and as such, it is not permissible for the respondent No.2 to implead her as a respondent in an application under section 12 of the Act. It was further submitted that if the petitioner herein is arraigned as a respondent, she would have to face the consequences of the order passed by the court which may lead to punishment, that is, criminal liability, and therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved by being joined as a respondent. Reliance was placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police & Anr., AIR 2009 SC (Suppl.) 1451, wherein the court held that in the absence of any statutory definition, the term 'relative' must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily, it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word 'relative' would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. The court held that by no stretch of imagination, a girl or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a 'relative'. The meaning of the word 'relative' would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. The court held that by no stretch of imagination, a girl or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a 'relative'. The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise. The learned advocate, accordingly, submitted that if the averments made in the application are taken to be true, even then, the petitioner not being a relative of the husband, cannot be made a respondent in the application in question. 4. Opposing the application, Mr. Krunal Shahi, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 - original applicant invited attention to the decision of this court in the case of Jaydipsinh Prabhatsinh Jhala & Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Others, 2010(1) CACC 447 (Guj) wherein the court has held that if in a given case upon service of summons, any of the respondents in an application under section 12(1) of the Act can demonstrate before the Magistrate that he or she has been wrongly joined or that there are no allegations against him or her to proceed further, it would be open for the Magistrate to delete such respondent from the proceedings and to drop further proceedings against him or her. It was submitted that, the applicant has a remedy to approach the learned Magistrate for deleting her from the array of respondents and as such, there is no warrant for exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code. Reliance was also placed upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma and another v. Bindu V. and others rendered on 2.12.2009 in Cri. M.C. No. 2225 of 2009 for the proposition that the question whether extraordinary inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised by the court to quash a proceeding initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is to be considered in the background of the settled legal position. M.C. No. 2225 of 2009 for the proposition that the question whether extraordinary inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be exercised by the court to quash a proceeding initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is to be considered in the background of the settled legal position. The court after referring to the Statement of Objects of the Act and the Scheme of the Act, held that in an application filed under section 12 claiming reliefs either under section 18, 19, 20, 21 or 22, the Magistrate can pass an interim order under section 18 to 23. All these relief’s are in respect of civil liability and not criminal liability. If that be so, it is not for the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings invoking extraordinary inherent powers provided under the Code as such order is necessary neither to give effect to any order under the Code nor to prevent abuse of the process of any court nor to secure the ends of justice. An offence under sub-section (1) of section 31 or an offence under section 33 taken cognisance by the Magistrate or an order passed by the Magistrate directing the respondent to execute a bond as provided under sub-section (3) of section 19, which by the mandate under sub-section (5) that such order is to be treated as an order under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stand on a different footing. They are truly criminal proceedings. Except in respect of such proceedings, it is not for the High Court to exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. Reliance was also placed upon an unreported decision of this High Court in the case of Vilasben Narendrabhai Zaveri v. State of Gujarat rendered on 8th December, 2011 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.13851/2011 wherein the court placing reliance upon the earlier decision in Jaydipsinh Prabhatsinh Jhala v. State of Gujarat (supra) disposed of the application by relegating the applicants therein to submit an application before the learned Magistrate that they are wrongly joined in the said proceeding or that there are no allegations against them to proceed further. It was, accordingly, urged that under the circumstances, the petitioner should be relegated to avail of the remedy before the learned Magistrate and that there is no warrant for intervention by this court in exercise of powers under section 482 of the Code. 5. In the backdrop of the facts and contentions noted herein above, the questions which arise for determination are firstly, as to whether it is permissible for this court to exercise powers under section 482 of the Code in respect of proceedings initiated under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act; and secondly as to whether the petitioner herein would fall within the ambit of the definition of “respondent” as defined under section 2(q) of the Act. 6. Insofar as the question as to whether it is permissible for this court to exercise powers under section 482 of the Code in respect of an application under section 12 of the Act is concerned, the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. V.K. Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu V. (supra) for the proposition that in an application under section 12 claiming reliefs either under section 18, 19, 20, 21 or 22, the Magistrate can pass interim order under section 18 to 23. All these relief’s are in respect of civil liability and not criminal liability. Hence, the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot quash the proceedings invoking the extraordinary inherent powers provided under the Code as such order is necessary neither to give effect to any order under the Code nor to prevent abuse of the process of any court nor to secure the ends of justice. 7. In this regard, a perusal of the definition of “respondent” as defined under section 2(q) of the Act shows that “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 the Act. Thus, respondent under the Act is essentially an adult male person against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the Act. Thus, respondent under the Act is essentially an adult male person against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the Act. The said definition is, however, qualified by the proviso thereto which says that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner. Thus, by virtue of the proviso, an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage is permitted to file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner, who may be either a male or female relative. Thus, insofar as a female is concerned, she can be arraigned as a respondent in a complaint filed by an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage. The expression “complaint” has not been defined under the Act. However, “complaint” has been defined under section 2(d) of the Code, to mean any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the Code that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence but does not include a police report. Thus, complaint primarily relates to the commission of an offence. On a reading of the definition of respondent, as defined under section 2(q) of the Act and more particularly to the proviso thereto, it appears that a female relative of the husband or male partner can be arraigned as a respondent in a complaint which would relate to an offence and would thus be relatable to criminal liability. In the aforesaid premises, this court does not agree with the view taken by the Kerala High Court in the above referred judgment to the extent it holds that it is not permissible for the court to resort to the provisions of section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings under section 12 of the Act by invoking its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under the Code. 8. 8. Adverting to the second question, namely, as to whether the petitioner herein falls within the ambit of “respondent” as defined under section 2(q) of the Act, from the allegations made in the application, it is apparent that it is the case of the respondent No.2 - original applicant that the petitioner herein is a kept woman of her husband and is residing with him despite there being a subsisting marriage between the original applicant and the respondent No.1 - husband. From the definition of 'respondent' referred to herein above, it is apparent that under the proviso to section 2(q), it is permissible for an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage to also file complaint against the relative of the husband or the male partner. Thus, insofar as a female is concerned, she can be arraigned as a respondent provided a complaint is filed by a wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage against her as a relative of the husband or the male partner. The facts of the present case are to be examined in the light of the aforesaid statutory provision. The Supreme Court in the case of U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police (supra) has held that in the absence of any statutory definition, the term 'relative' must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily, it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or granddaughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word 'relative' would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. The court in the context of section 498 I.P.C. held that the provision being a penal one deserves strict construction. Ordinarily save and except where a contextual meaning is required to be given to a statute, a penal provision is required to be construed strictly. The court held that by no stretch of imagination, a girlfriend or a concubine in an etymological sense would be a 'relative'. The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood, marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise. The court held that by no stretch of imagination, a girlfriend or a concubine in an etymological sense would be a 'relative'. The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood, marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the petitioner herein who is alleged to be a kept woman of the husband of the original applicant- respondent No.2 herein undisputedly is not a blood relative of the husband of the original applicant nor is she related to him by marriage or by adoption. As held by the Supreme Court in the above referred decision, a girlfriend or a concubine would by no stretch of imagination be a relative. Under the circumstances, the present case would be directly covered by the above referred decision of the Supreme Court and hence, the petitioner would not fall within the ambit of the definition of 'respondent' as defined under section 2(q) of the Act. The petitioner, therefore, could not have been arraigned as a respondent in the application filed by the respondent No.2 under section 12 of the Act. The petitioner is, therefore, justified in invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the Code to prevent the abuse of process of court. 9. The application, therefore, succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The petitioner Jalpaben Chandubhai Padsala, viz. the original respondent No.4, shall stand deleted as a respondent in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.676/2010 pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Application allowed.