Pranav B Prem

The Allahabad High Court has emphasized that before issuing a notice under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), courts must first determine whether the person being implicated has lived or is living in a shared household with the aggrieved party. The Court warned that such proceedings should not be used to harass individuals who have no domestic relationship with the complainant. A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed this ruling while hearing a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings initiated under the DV Act. The petitioners included the husband, his married sisters, and the husband of one of the sisters, who were accused in the case.

Requirement Of Shared Household For A Valid Complaint

The Court clarified that proceedings under the DV Act can only be initiated against individuals who have lived with the aggrieved party in a shared household. It relied on the statutory definitions provided under Section 2 of the DV Act: “The respondent must be related to the aggrieved person in the manner as mentioned in Section 2(f) and he lived or has been living together with aggrieved person in a shared household and then commits domestic violence in the manner mentioned in Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act.” The Court noted that the married sisters of the husband and their spouses had been residing separately with their respective families. Thus, as per Section 2(q) of the Act, they could not be considered respondents in the case since they did not share a household with the complainant.

Misuse Of DV Act Against Distant Relatives

The Court acknowledged that it frequently encounters cases where the DV Act is misused to falsely implicate distant relatives who have no actual involvement in the marital dispute. It observed: “This Court came across number of cases where just to harass the family of husband or the person in domestic relationship, aggrieved party used to implicate the relatives of other side who are not even living or lived with the aggrieved person in shared household and they have been residing at separate places.” The Court directed the lower courts to scrutinize applications under Section 12 of the DV Act carefully and ensure that the Protection Officer’s report, if available, is taken into account before issuing notices.

Quashing Of Proceedings Against In-Laws Residing Separately

The High Court, after reviewing the case record, found no material to suggest that applicant nos. 2 to 6 (the married sisters and their spouses) had ever lived with the complainant. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against them, stating: “From the perusal of the impugned 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.” Similarly, a statement recorded under Section 200 CrPC also failed to establish any domestic relationship between the complainant and applicant nos. 2 to 6. As a result, the Court found the proceedings against them to be malicious and set them aside.

Case To Proceed Against Mother-In-Law And Husband

However, the Court refused to quash the proceedings against the complainant’s mother-in-law and husband. It held that the mother-in-law had lived in the shared household and was accused of harassing the complainant for dowry and threatening to evict her. Given these allegations, the Court ruled that she falls within the definition of a respondent under the DV Act: “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.” Since the husband’s application for quashing had already been dismissed earlier, the proceedings against him were also allowed to continue.

Clear Directions To Lower Courts

The High Court reiterated that before issuing notices under Section 12 of the DV Act, trial courts must verify whether the accused persons actually lived with the complainant in a shared household. It stated: “Therefore, 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.”

Expedited Proceedings Against Husband And Mother-In-Law

The Court directed the trial court to proceed with the case against the mother-in-law and husband without delay and ensure that the matter is concluded within 60 days: “The court below is free to proceed against applicant nos. 1 and 7 and decide Case No. 59 of 2016 (Smrita Srivastava Vs. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava and others) expeditiously within a period of 60 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order.” The judgment reinforces the principle that cases under the DV Act must be based on substantive allegations and not be used as tools of harassment against distant relatives who have never lived in the shared household.

Cause Title: Krishnawati Devi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr.

Case No: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14626 of 2019

Date: January-22-2025

Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal

[Read/Download order]