Back
NINALA JAYASURYA
Panangipalli Venkata Chalapathi Rao – Appellant
Versus
Bandaru Atchuta Swetha – Respondent
JUDGMENT
NAINALA JAYASURYA, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned counsel for the 1st respondent/complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 2nd respondent-State.
2. The present Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/5th respondent in D.V.C.No.1 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Learned Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, on the premise that there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent herein.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, submits that the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 5th respondent in the said D.V.C, is a "friend" of the husband of the 1st respondent. While drawing the attention of this Court to the application filed in D.V.C, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the D.V.C and further that as there is no relationship between the petitioner and husband and in-laws of the 1st respondent, the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "D.V. Act") are not attracted. In the said c
A friend of the husband of the aggrieved person is not a "respondent" within the meaning of the D.V. Act and is not subject to the provisions of the Act.
Only individuals living in a shared household with the aggrieved person qualify as respondents under the Domestic Violence Act, as defined in Sections 2(q) and 2(f).
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a subsisting domestic relationship between the respondent and the complainant for the court to pass an order under the DV Act....
The court ruled that a domestic relationship ends upon establishing separate households, disallowing a domestic violence claim under the Act.
Lack of domestic relationship precludes application of domestic violence laws.
The existence of a familial relationship is sufficient to sustain domestic violence proceedings under the Act, regardless of the respondent's residence status.
The court holds that a relationship in the nature of marriage qualifies as a domestic relationship under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, allowing the petitioner's complaint to pro....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intentional residence in a shared household as per the definitions in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, ....
Point of Law : A “shared household" is defined in section 2(s) as a household where person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or with respondent.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
