1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties.

2. The present Criminal Application is filed by the two applicants, who are senior citizens, aged about 73 years and 67 years of age. The jurisdiction of this Court is sought to be invoked for quashing and setting aside the process issued against them by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Panvel in M.A.No.385 of 2017. The said relief is sought on the ground that the issuance of process to them is an abuse of process of the Court and it is issued for a purpose which is completely in contrast to the provisions of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Domestic Violence Act) and it is the specific contention of the applicants as raised in the application that they are no way concerned with the allegations that are levelled by the Respondent No.1 in the application made by her under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. The learned counsel for the applicants Ms. Sarah Kapadia in support of the application would submit that perusal of the application filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is filed by Respondent No.1, who is the daughter-in-law of the applicants would reveal that Respondent No.1 is married with the son of applicants on 14th April 2004 and the marriage was a love marriage and the parties were coming from the different States and different caste and culture and the married couple were staying separately from the residence of Applicant Nos.1 and 2 since the applicants never approved their son's marriage with Respondent No.1.

The learned counsel for the applicants would submit that perusal of the complaint would reveal that no allegations have been made against the applicants and not only this, it is the specific case of the applicants in the application that she was always residing separately from Applicant Nos.1 and 2 and she was never accepted by them as a daughter-in-law.

In the light of the averments that are made in the application, which learned counsel for the applicants have taken me through, her specific submission is that this would not warrant issuance of notice to the applicants, who are aged parents of the husband of Respondent No.1 and it amounts to an abuse of process of law. The application, therefore, seeks quashment of the proceedings instituted in M.A.No.385 of 2017 against the present applicants, which are pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Panvel.

Another legal submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the applicants is that on perusal of the application, which is filed by Respondent No.1, by no stretch of imagination, the applicants can be said to be in domestic relationship with Respondent No.1. She would heavily rely on the definition of the term “domestic relationship” as defined in Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as the connotation “shared household”, which is assigned a specific meaning in Section 2. Her specific submission is that in light of the terminology employed in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the allegations would not make out a case for issuance of notice to the present applicants, who have been unnecessarily roped in, on frivolous allegations and it is her submission that this surely is not the object of the enactment.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1, the daughterinlaw, would submit that the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are intended to protect women who has or have been sharing the same household and where the parties are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption. The learned counsel would submit that in addition to said relationship, the family members living together as a joint family are also covered. She would submit that the object of the enactment is to effectively protect the rights of a women guaranteed under the Constitution, who are victims of vi