The Allahabad High Court while allowing an application said that the Court came across number of cases where just to harass the family of husband or the person in domestic relationship, aggrieved party implicated the relatives of other side who are not even living or lived with the aggrieved person in shared household.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed this order while hearing an application under Section 482 filed by Krishnawati Devi and 6 others.
The 482 CrPC application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding/complaint in Case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.
Facts giving rise to the controversy is that applicant no 7 is the husband of opposite party no 2 and matrimonial discord between them has culminated into this proceeding as well as other proceeding between them.
Counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no 1 is the mother-in-law of opposite party no 2 while applicant nos 2, 3, 4 and 5 are married sisters of applicant no 7 while applicant no 6 is the husband of applicant no 3. Applicant nos 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been residing separately with their family at different places which is clear from their addresses. Therefore, they are not in a domestic relationship with opposite party no 2. Therefore, applicant nos 2 to 6 will not come within the definition of respondents as per Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act and they have been falsely implicated in the impugned proceeding. Therefore, the impugned proceeding is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.
It is further submitted that the Court has rejected the application at the instance of applicant no 7 by order dated 16.04.2019 but the proceeding against applicant no 1, mother-in-law of the opposite party no 2, is also erroneous.
It is lastly submitted that the impugned proceeding is absolutely malicious and liable to be quashed.
Per contra, AGA has submitted that applicant no 1, mother-in-law of opposite party no 2 has been in a domestic relationship with opposite party no 2 at the relevant time. Therefore, applicant no 1 would come within the definition of the respondent as per Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act.
The Court observed,
After hearing the submissions of parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant no 7 and opposite party no 2 has been solemnized in the year 02.06.2011. Subsequently, on the rising of matrimonial discord between them, they have filed cases against each other, including the impugned proceeding.
From the perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant nos 2 to 6 are relatives of applicant no 7 and they have been residing separately. Therefore, as per Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, they cannot be termed as respondents as they have not been residing in a shared household with the opposite party no 2.
The proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be initiated when the domestic violence as mentioned in Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act is committed by the respondent who is living in domestic relationship with the aggrieved person.
The definition of domestic relationship shows that it will be presumed when two persons are related to each other by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or are family members of a joint family living together in a shared household.
The courts below while issuing notice u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act must look into this fact from the perusal of the application filed u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act along with other available record including the report of the Protection Officer, if available on record, the Court said.
The Court further observed,
Coming back to the case, from the perusal of the application filed u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, it is clear that no specific allegation has been made against applicant nos 2 to 6 that they have been residing in a shared household with the opposite party no 2. Therefore, they cannot be said to be in a domestic relationship with opposite party no 2.
From the perusal of the statement of opposite party no 2 recorded u/s 200 CrPC in Case u/s 498-A IPC, it is clear that the allegation of domestic violence was made against applicant nos 1 and 7 and it was also not mentioned that applicant nos 2 to 6 have been residing with her in a shared household. Therefore, impugned proceeding against applicant nos 2 to 6 is malicious, hence deserves to be quashed.
However, considering the fact that applicant no 1 who is the mother-in-law of opposite party no 2 has been residing in shared household, will fall within the definition of respondent and there is the allegation that opposite party no 2 has been harassed for demand of dowry and she was also extended threat to evict her from the shared household by the applicant no 1, therefore, no case for quashing is made out at the instance of applicant no 1. As the present application has already been rejected at the instance of applicant no 7, therefore, the present application is also rejected at the instance of applicant no 1.
In view of the above observation, the Court quashed the proceeding/complaint in Case under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, against applicant nos 2 to 6.
“The court below is free to proceed against applicant nos 1 and 7 and decide Case (Smrita Srivastava Vs Rajiv Kumar Srivastava and others) expeditiously within a period of 60 days from the date of receiving the copy of the order,” the order reads.
With the aforesaid direction, the Court allowed the application.
Allahabad High Court notes men, families being harassed under Domestic Violence Act
