The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently ruled that a "domestic relationship" under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) includes relationships between individuals who may have lived together in a shared household in the past. This observation was made by Justice Sanjay Dhar while rejecting a plea by the parents-in-law of a woman seeking to dismiss domestic violence charges against them.
The parents-in-law contended that the case was not maintainable as they no longer shared a domestic relationship with their daughter-in-law, who had left the matrimonial home in 2016. However, the Court disagreed, holding that the DV Act’s definition of "domestic relationship" covers even those relationships that existed in the past.
"The definition (of 'domestic violence' under the DV Act) makes it clear that ‘domestic relationship’ would include even a relationship between two persons who may have lived... Therefore, even if the respondent has left the shared household in the year 2016, but the fact of the matter remains that prior to that, she has admittedly lived in a shared household with the petitioners. Thus, there was a domestic relationship between the parties," the Court observed.
Background of the Case
The matter concerned a complaint filed by the woman against her husband and in-laws, alleging that she was subjected to harassment and beaten for not bringing sufficient dowry after their marriage in 2015. This was her second complaint, as she had previously filed and withdrawn a similar complaint in 2021.
After the fresh complaint, charges against the woman’s sister-in-law were dismissed by a Jammu court. However, her parents-in-law (the petitioners) were not granted similar relief, prompting them to approach the High Court.
Arguments by the Petitioners
Second Complaint Not Maintainable: The petitioners argued that the complainant could not file a second complaint on the same matter after withdrawing her initial complaint in 2021.
Absence of Domestic Relationship: They also contended that they no longer shared a domestic relationship with the complainant, as she had left the shared household in 2016.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Second Complaint Permissible: The Court ruled that principles of res judicata (which bar courts from re-examining settled issues) do not apply to proceedings under the DV Act. It noted that the complainant had explained the circumstances that led to the filing of the second complaint after withdrawing the first one.
Domestic Relationship Includes Past Shared Living: The Court clarified that even though the complainant had left the matrimonial home in 2016, the fact that she had previously lived with the petitioners in a shared household established a "domestic relationship" under the DV Act.
On these grounds, the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the parents-in-law, holding that the charges against them were maintainable.
Cause Title: Sardul Singh & 1 Anr. V/S Davinder Kour
