SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(AP) 1114

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
Ninala Jayasurya, J.
Panangipalli Venkata Chalapathi Rao – Appellant
Versus
Bandaru Atchuta Swetha – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2187 of 2021
Decided On : 19-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
A.K.Kishore Reddy, Advocate, Sasanka Bhuvanagiri, Advocate

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.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PETITION - PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 - SECTION 2(A), 2(F), 2(G), 2(Q), 3, 12 - FRIEND OF HUSBAND - NOT A RESPONDENT - NO DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP - PROCEEDINGS QUASHED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, who is arrayed as the 5th respondent in a Domestic Violence Case (D.V.C), is a "friend" of the 1st respondent's husband. The 1st respondent filed an application under Sec. 12 of the D.V. Act, alleging domestic violence by the petitioner and other respondents. The petitioner challenged the proceedings against him, arguing that there is no domestic relationship between him and the 1st respondent or her husband.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner, being a "friend" of the husband of the 1st respondent, does not fall under any of the categories of persons envisaged under the D.V. Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to him, and continuation of proceedings against him constitutes abuse of process of law.

Issues: Whether the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) are applicable to a friend of the husband of the aggrieved person.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the relevant provisions of the D.V. Act, including the definitions of "aggrieved person", "domestic relationship", "respondent", and "shared household". It held that for the invocation of the provisions of the Act and granting of reliefs thereto, the following ingredients are to be satisfied: (a) There should be a domestic relationship between the aggrieved person with the respondent; (b) An act of the domestic violence by the respondent; (c) The aggrieved person and the respondent live or at any point of time lived together in a 'shared household'; (d) They should be related by consanguinity, marriage or through the relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; (e) The complaint should be against a relative of the husband or the male person. The Court further referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. Suvetha Vs State by Inspector of Police and another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 757, which held that the term "relative" in the context of domestic violence legislation should be given a narrow interpretation and would not include a girlfriend or concubine.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in the D.V.C.

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 circumstances, he submits that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner/5th respondent constitutes abuse of process of Law and accordingly seeks to quash the same.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. As seen from the application filed by the complainant/ 1 st respondent under Sec. 12 of the D.V. Act, the petitioner/5th respondent is the "close friend" of the 1st respondent's husband. While making certain allegations against the respondents in the D.V.C, including the petitioner herein, the 1st respondent made the following prayer:-

    a) Direct the respondents not to commit any acts of domestic violence against the aggrieved person and her minor children and other family members;

    b) Direct the respondents not to interfere with the aggrieved person's day-to-day life;

    c) Direct the 1st respondent to pay Rs.10, 00, 000.00 towards compensation and damages; and

    d) To pass such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to the petitioner, who is a friend of the 1st respondent's husband, it may be expedient to refer to the relevant provisions of the D.V. Act.

6. Sec. 2(a) of the D.V. Act defines "aggrieved person" 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.

7. "Domestic relationship" is defined under Sec. 2(f) of the D.V. Act, which means a relationship between two persons, who lived or have, at any point of time lived together in a share 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. As per Sec. 2(g) of the D.V. Act, "Domestic Violence" has the same meaning as assigned to it in Sec. 3. As per Sec. 2(q) of the D.V. Act, "respondent" means any adult male person, who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under the Act and in terms of proviso to Sec. 2(q) an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also filed a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.

8. As per Sec. 2(s) of the D.V. Act "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 ei

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top