Safiya Malik

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a domestic violence complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The court held that there was no justifiable ground to quash the complaint at this stage and directed that it be adjudicated by the Magistrate. The petition was filed by an Air Force officer, his parents, and his estranged wife, an Army officer.

The petitioners sought quashing of the complaint on the grounds that the allegations were vague, that the wife was financially independent, and that the Delhi court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The wife contended that she had been forced to leave her matrimonial home and had taken refuge at her parental home in Delhi, where she filed the complaint.

The marriage between the petitioner, Sqn. Ldr. Prabhakar Bhatt, and the respondent, Maj. Annu Lamba, took place on November 26, 2011. The couple lived together in Allahabad for about a month before being stationed separately due to their respective postings in the armed forces. The petitioners argued that since they never resided together in Delhi, the complaint filed there should be dismissed.

The wife filed the complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in the Rohini court, seeking protection orders, monetary relief, residence rights, and custody of their minor daughter. She alleged economic abuse, wrongful retention of her assets, and claimed insufficient financial support for the minor daughter.

The petitioners, in response, asserted that the allegations were general and lacked specific incidents. They further contended that the wife was financially independent, earning approximately Rs. 1,00,000 per month, and was already receiving Rs. 10,000 per month under Air Force Rules for their daughter, making her demand for Rs. 50,000 in maintenance and Rs. 44,000 in litigation expenses excessive. They also argued that the couple had never cohabited in Delhi and therefore, the Delhi courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

The High Court addressed three key issues: limitation for filing a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act, territorial jurisdiction, and whether the allegations merited further judicial examination.

The petitioners contended that the complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was time-barred. In response, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Kamatchi vs. Lakshmi Narayanan, stating:

"There is no limitation for filing of the Application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. The first objection of the Petitioners that the present Application under S.12 of D.V. Act is barred by limitation, is without merit."

The court held that limitation applies only to cases involving a breach of a protection order under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act and does not restrict the initial filing of a complaint under Section 12.

The petitioners argued that the complaint should be quashed since the parties never resided together in Delhi. The court examined Section 27(1) of the Domestic Violence Act, which allows an aggrieved person to file a complaint where they "permanently or temporarily reside."

The court noted the wife’s claim that she had returned to her parental home in Delhi after their separation in November 2015 and had filed the complaint while living there. It observed:

"After their separation in November, 2015 she was compelled to shift to her parental home in Delhi and the present Petition under Section 12 D.V. Act was filed by her. It cannot be overlooked that she is an Army Officer and has necessarily to go to her place of posting which may be out of Delhi; however, there is specific averments that her permanent place of abode is her parental home, which is undeniably in Delhi."

The court further referred to Shyamlal Devda vs. Parimala, which held that a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act is maintainable where the aggrieved person resides temporarily. It also cited Ramlakhan Singh vs. Union of India, where it was held that:

"Where a victim of domestic violence finds shelter in her parental home and she specifically claims it to be a place of temporary residence she can prefer a Complaint in such place."

Based on these observations, the court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, stating that the wife had demonstrated that she was residing in Delhi at the time of filing the complaint.

The petitioners argued that the allegations in the complaint were vague and lacked specificity. However, the court, after examining the complaint, found that the complaint contained specific allegations of economic abuse and claims regarding financial support for the minor daughter, which required assessment by the Magistrate. It held that the petition could not be quashed outright at this stage. The court observed:

"The perusal of the Petition shows that there are specific averments which have been made to make out a case of domestic violence which need to be considered on merits; it cannot be said that the Petition does not disclose any act of domestic violence or that the Petition is liable to be rejected outrightly."

The petitioners contended that the wife was financially secure, owning multiple assets worth Rs. 51 lakhs, and was in possession of jewelry and savings, reducing her need for financial support. The court, however, noted:

"The learned M.M. may come to whatever conclusion, but the averments made in the Complaint cannot be said to be bereft of any cause of action."

The wife sought residence rights under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act. The petitioners contended that since there was no evidence of domestic violence, she was not entitled to claim a right to a shared household. The court cited Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi, stating:

"Every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same."

The court further observed that the Domestic Violence Act encompasses various forms of abuse, including emotional and economic abuse, and is not limited to physical violence. It held that:

"The definition of Domestic Violence is comprehensive and includes not only physical abuse, but also mental and emotional abuse. Most importantly, it also includes economic abuse."

The court ultimately dismissed the petition, stating:

"There is no justifiable ground shown by the Petitioners entitling them for quashing of the Complaint. The averments made in the Petition, are based on merits which is to be appreciated by the learned M.M. who may pass appropriate Orders after considering the rival contentions of the parties."

The court dismissed the petition and any pending applications.

Case Title: Sqn. Ldr. Prabhakar Bhatt & Ors. vs. Maj. Annu Lamba
Case Number: W.P. (CRL) 3356/2017
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

[Read/Download order]