Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna has quashed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, initiated against the petitioner, the brother-in-law of the complainant. The Court held that the allegations made were general in nature and did not disclose specific incidents of domestic violence. The Court concluded that no prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and set aside the summoning order dated 30.11.2017. The petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of Domestic Violence Complaint Case No. 4219/2017 dated 30.11.2017, instituted under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Also Read: Supreme Court: “Unregistered Document May Be Received as Evidence of a Contract” in Specific Performance Suit

The complainant married the son of Petitioner No.1 and brother of Petitioner No.2 in February 2002 and resided with the family at a property in Ashok Vihar, Delhi. Two children were born from the marriage. According to the petitioners, following ongoing differences, the husband’s parents issued a public notice in December 2004, declaring termination of relations with their son and daughter-in-law.

On 10.09.2017, the complainant filed a police complaint leading to FIR No. 412/2017 under Sections 342/323/506 IPC against her husband. Later, Sections 354B and 377 IPC were also added. The husband was released on bail on 11.10.2017. Subsequently, the complainant filed the impugned domestic violence complaint on 30.11.2017, seeking injunctive reliefs under the DV Act.

The reliefs sought included an order prohibiting the petitioners from entering her residence and from alienating certain properties in Pitampura, Delhi. Additionally, she sought rent of ₹61,000 for her current residence in CWG Village, Delhi, where she resided with her children.

On 18.12.2017, summons were issued to the husband, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law. The married sister-in-law named in the complaint was not summoned. The husband passed away on 28.12.2017 and the mother-in-law on 13.10.2024, leaving the petition to survive only against the brother-in-law.

The petitioner argued that there were no specific allegations against him and that the complainant had lived separately with her husband since 2003. He further stated that he had no communication with the complainant for over 16 years.

In response, the complainant asserted that the allegations were both serious and specific. She stated that she lived with the petitioner at Ashok Vihar and suffered harassment. She invoked Section 2(f) of the DV Act, referring to shared household provisions, and cited V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot (2012) 3 SCC 183 to support the admissibility of conduct predating the DV Act.

In rejoinder, the petitioner denied all allegations and introduced a letter dated 15.06.2002 allegedly written by the complainant to her husband, apologizing for her behaviour.

The petitioner claimed the complaint was time-barred and cited multiple High Court rulings, including Jaswinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and Vikrant Sudhakar Ambhore v. Varsha Vikrant Ambhore, to argue that belated complaints lacking specific allegations should not be entertained.

He also cited the Supreme Court ruling in Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 263, which warned against indiscriminate initiation of domestic violence proceedings.

In reply, the complainant contended that the petition was not maintainable and that the petitioner had visited and harassed her at various places of residence. She insisted that a domestic relationship existed and referred to Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022) 8 SCC 90 to argue that the DV Act covers both subsisting and past relationships.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna examined the pleadings, submissions, and legal precedents. The Court stated: “From the perusal of the record, it emerges that though immediately after marriage in 2002, the Respondent-Complainant had come to her matrimonial home but soon thereafter, she and her Husband had separated and had been residing in Nilgiri Apartments, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi and other accommodations, away from in-laws.”

The Court noted: “Because of the matrimonial disputes, the in-laws distanced themselves from the Complainant. The father even took out a Public Notice in the daily Newspaper on 28.12.2004 stating that they have terminated all the relationship with their son and Daughter-in-law.”

Regarding the allegations, the Court observed: “Though specific allegations have been raised against Husband (now deceased) and Petitioner No.1 (now deceased), but the allegations levelled against Petitioner No.2 are general in nature.”

The Court listed the allegations and stated: “There are no specific incidents or dates given by the Complainant against the Petitioner No.2... The allegations are general in nature and non specific, which reflects an endeavour by the Complainant to somehow rope in all the family members.”

It further recorded: “The Sister of the Husband was also named in the Complaint though she was not summoned.”

“The Complainant is at present residing in CWG house in which there is no specific averment of there being any threat by Petitioner No. 2 of dispossession or otherwise.”

Also Read: Eligibility Cannot Be Decided Solely By Medical Labels | Karnataka High Court Orders Appointment Of Disabled Candidate Based On Functional Capacity

Based on the above, the Court concluded: “In view of the above, prima facie no acts of Domestic violence are made out against Petitioner No.2.”

The Court issued a directive allowing the petition. It stated: “The Petition is allowed and the Impugned Summoning Order dated 30.11.2017, is hereby set aside.”

The Court further held: “The present Petition and pending Application(s) are accordingly, disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Amit Gupta, Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, and Mr. H.S. Mahapatra, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Avadh Bihari Kaushik, Advocate

Case Title: XXX v YYY

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC: 3761

Case Number: CRL.M.C. 1000/2018

Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna

[Read/Download order]