Never Lived Together | Telangana High Court Says No Shared Household No Domestic Relationship | Quashes Domestic Violence Case Against USA-Based Sister-In-Law
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice Juvvadi Sridevi allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against a respondent who is the sister-in-law of the complainant and resides abroad. The Court held that the statutory requirements of “domestic relationship” and “shared household” under the Act were not satisfied in the case. It found that no specific dates, times, or particulars of harassment attributable to the petitioner were provided and that only vague and omnibus allegations were made. Consequently, the Court directed that the proceedings in D.V.C. No.18 of 2022 pending before the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, Suryapet, be quashed. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were ordered to stand closed.
The criminal petition was filed by the petitioner, arrayed as respondent No.5 in D.V.C. No.18 of 2022, seeking to quash the proceedings pending before the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate at Suryapet. The petitioner is the sister-in-law of the complainant (respondent No.2 in the petition) and resides in the United States of America.
According to the record, the marriage between the complainant and petitioner No.1 (the complainant’s husband) took place in 2020 at Suryapet. Following the marriage, the complainant resided with her husband’s family for about three months. During this initial period, she alleged that she was looked after well. Subsequently, her in-laws allegedly made her perform all household chores without assistance and began to demand additional dowry from her parents.
The complainant’s mother, upon being informed of these demands, allegedly provided money to the in-laws on several occasions, requesting them to care for her daughter. The couple later moved to Hyderabad, where they resided in the house of the present petitioner. The complainant alleged that even during this period, her mother was asked to arrange household articles for them.
The specific allegations against the present petitioner include that, despite residing in America, she allegedly harassed the complainant through telephone calls by demanding dowry, stating that she also wanted dowry as “adapaduchu” (sister-in-law). It was alleged that when the complainant’s mother arranged ₹1 lakh, the petitioner refused to accept it, instead demanding ₹10 lakhs. Further, after the complainant gave birth to a female child, it was alleged that all petitioners harassed her, and that the present petitioner demanded an additional ₹4 lakhs, threatening that if the amount was not paid, the complainant and her infant child should be left.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner never resided with the complainant in a shared household, as required by Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”), and that the allegations were vague and lacking in specifics. He relied on the Supreme Court decision in Giduthuri Kesari Kumar and Others v. State of Telangana [2015 SCC Online Hyd 18], which held that proceedings under the DV Act may only be quashed under Section 482 CrPC in exceptional cases, such as when no domestic relationship exists or when a competent court has already acquitted the accused of identical allegations.
The counsel further relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal [2025 SCC Online SC 1158], which clarified that petitions under Section 482 CrPC challenging proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act are maintainable, though High Courts should exercise caution and interference should be limited to cases involving gross illegality or injustice.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that there were specific allegations against the petitioner and that the veracity of such allegations could only be determined after a full-fledged trial before the Magistrate. Accordingly, the State sought dismissal of the petition.
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi recorded: “As seen from the record, no time, date and particulars with regard to the alleged harassment made by the petitioner/respondent No.5 are given and only vague and omnibus allegations are made against the petitioner.”
The Court noted the statutory framework under the DV Act and extracted the definitions under Section 2(a), 2(f), and 2(s). On the definition of “aggrieved person,” the Court recorded: “‘Aggrieved person’ means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.”
On “domestic relationship,” the Court noted: “‘Domestic relationship’ means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.”
Regarding “shared household,” the Court recorded: “‘Shared household’ means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them… and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family or which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.”
Applying these definitions, the Court stated: “In the instant case, the petitioner-respondent No.5, who is the sister in law of the respondent No.2, resides in America and it is nowhere established that the petitioner-respondent No.5 and respondent No.2 have ever resided in a domestic relationship and lived together in a shared house either singly or along with petitioner No.1 at any point of time. Therefore, the ingredients of the offences under DV Act are not made out.”
The Court further recorded: “In the said circumstances, and in view of the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings against the petitioner-respondent No.5 are liable to be quashed.”
Justice Juvvadi Sridevi issued the following order: “Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/respondent No.5 in D.V.C.No.18 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial First Class Magistrate, at Suryapet, are hereby quashed.”
The Court further ordered: “As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Baglekar Akash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. S. Madhavi, Assistant Public Prosecutor
Case Title: XXX v State of Telengana
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.11818 of 2023
Bench: Justice Juvvadi Sridevi
