Mere Visits Not Sufficient To Constitute Residence In Shared Household: Bombay HC Quashes Domestic Violence Case Against A Married Sister In Law
The Bombay High Court quashed a domestic violence case against a married sister in law saying that mere visits to the shared household being devoid of permanency is not sufficient to constitute residence in the same.
The Court was deciding a writ petition filed against the order of the Sessions Court that had set aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate who dismissed the Domestic Violence application.
A Single Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held, “… in my view, there was no subsisting domestic relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent No 1 and the Petitioner could not have been arrayed as Respondent in the D.V. application. The mere visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household. Even otherwise considering the pleadings in the applications read with the reliefs, there is no case of domestic violence made out qua the Petitioner.”
Advocate Satyavrat Joshi represented the petitioner while Advocate Subodh Desai represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The respondent, a married woman (complainant) had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), claiming reliefs under Sections 17, 18, 20, and 22 of DV Act. In the said application, she impleaded her husband, mother-in-law, her unmarried brother-in-law, and married sister-in-law (petitioner). The cause title of the application indicated that the complainant’s husband, mother, and brother were residing at “Siddesh Jyoti Tower” which was the shared-household whereas the address of the petitioner was shown of her matrimonial house at “Doctor’s Quarters Building”.
The Metropolitan Magistrate before proceeding, further called upon the complainant to satisfy on the point of maintainability of the application under DV Act against the petitioner. It was held that the petitioner though relative of the complainant was residing separately with her own family and was not in “domestic relationship” as both never lived together in the shared household. Therefore, the application was dismissed but an appeal was filed which was allowed by the Sessions Court. Hence, the married sister-in-law approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “… even if the allegations in the application are perused, as summarized in the chart tendered by Mr. Desai, there is no individual act attributed to the Petitioner. General sweeping allegations are made against the Petitioner collectively with the other Respondents and there is no specific incident qua the Petitioner. The only pleading qua the Petitioner individually is that the Petitioner every day used to come to their house by 2:00 p.m. and then she used to leave at around 8:00 p.m. and she used to pack food for her husband and her family members from their home.”
The Court added that the petitioner cannot be said to subject the complainant to any act of domestic violence under Section 3 of DV Act. It further relied upon the judgment in the case of Avinash s/o. Rangnath Bhokare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Criminal Application No.4281 of 199) in which the Single Judge held that it would be sheer abuse of process of law that merely because the accused sometimes visited their parental house, they were sharing the household with the complainant so as to constitute domestic relationship.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order.
Cause Title- ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:7359)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Satyavrat Joshi, Anselay Andrew, and Punit Jain.
Respondents: Advocates Subodh Desai and Preeti Gada.
