JUDGMENT : S.B. Shukre, J. 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. This application challenges order dated 10/3/2014 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur thereby rejecting application (Exh.40) filed by the applicants for dismissal of the application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, "the D.V. Act"). 5. Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that in view of the definition of Section 2(q)of the D.V. Act and also the fact that the nature of relationship claimed by non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 is of the relationship existing between the members of a joint family, the complaint under the D.V. Act could not have been filed against the applicant Nos. 2 to 5, they being the adult female members. He also submits that even the basis for filing of the complaint has been taken away as there is no longer a shared house hold between the applicants and non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 after the settlement arrived at between them and which has been recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in the order passed on 17/9/2014 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 667 of 2014. Therefore, he submits that the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the D.V. Act deserves to be quashed and set aside. Alternatively, he submits, so far as applicant No. 1 is concerned, liberty may be given to him to approach the trial Court for seeking his discharge from the case by pointing out new developments in the matter. 6. According to learned Counsel for non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4, the proceedings cannot be quashed for the reason that even the female members are included in the definition of respondent as appearing in Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act and for this submission he has placed reliance upon the case of Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors. Reported in 2011 CRI. L. J. 1687. He also submits that whatever arrangement has been arrived at between the parties as recorded in the order dated 17/9/2014 by the Division Bench of this Court is of only temporary nature and, therefore, it would not alter the nature and character of the claim made and the allegations levelled by non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 against the present applicants. Therefore, he submits that this application deserves to be dismissed. 7. 1 to 4 against the present applicants. Therefore, he submits that this application deserves to be dismissed. 7. Upon going through the definition of "respondent" given in Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act, I find that learned Counsel for the applicants is right in his submission that no female members of a family could be joined as respondent in a complaint filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Of course, there is a proviso to Section 2(q) which indicates that even the male member of the family of the husband can be joined as respondent in a case where the nature of relationship claimed is akin to marriage or through marriage. This is what has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sandhya Manoj Wankhade (supra). However, this proviso, as clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court, would not be applicable to the present case for the simple reason that the basis of domestic relationship claimed by non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 is not a marriage but the relationship arising from the applicants and non-applicants being the members of a joint family. Therefore, in my humble opinion, non-applicant Nos. 1 to 4 cannot seek assistance from the said case of Sandhya Manoj Wankhade. On the other hand this case, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants, would be covered by the provision of the main Section 2(q), which defines the respondent as any adult male person who is in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the D.V. Act. I am also fortified in this regard by the view taken by learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Tehmina Qureshi Vs. Shazia Qureshi reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 97. Therefore, so far as applicants No. 2 to 5 are concerned, Section 12 of the D.V. Act proceedings are not maintainable and hence deserve to be quashed and set aside. 8. As regards applicant No. 1, I am of the view that he being the male member of a family of which the respondents are also claiming to be the members, cannot take recourse to Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act and he will have to rest his claim on some other ground. 8. As regards applicant No. 1, I am of the view that he being the male member of a family of which the respondents are also claiming to be the members, cannot take recourse to Section 2(q) of the D.V. Act and he will have to rest his claim on some other ground. This other ground seems to be in the nature of subsequent developments in the matter but for urging it, I am of the further view, he will have to go before the trial Court as it was not available earlier and hence is a new circumstance enabling applicant No. 1 to file a fresh application. Therefore, alternate submission made on behalf of applicant No. 1, applicant No. 1 deserves to be accepted. Of course, even this has been opposed by the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contending that whatever has been recorded in the order of the Division Bench of this Court on 17/9/2014, as seen from the observations in paragraph-7 thereof, is in the nature of temporary arrangement between the parties and therefore, applicant No. 1 cannot be allowed to take advantage of the same. I am not inclined to consider this argument in this application as it can be raised before the trial Court after fresh application is filed by applicant No. 1. 9. In the circumstances, I am inclined to allow this application. (1) The application is allowed. (2) Impugned order dated 10/3/2014 passed below Exh.40 is hereby quashed and set aside. (3) The proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the D.V. Act being M.C.A. No. 2177 of 2012 as against applicant Nos. 2 to 4 are hereby quashed and set aside. (4) Applicant No. 1 is relegated to the trial Court for seeking appropriate relief in the case on new ground in view of the subsequent developments and accordingly he is given liberty to file a fresh application in that behalf before the trial Court which application shall be decided by the trial Court after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to respondent Nos. 2 to 4, in accordance with law.