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

2021 Supreme(Bom) 660

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Rohit B.Deo, J.
Ravi - Appellant
Versus
Apurva - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 333 of 2020
Decided On : 05-02-2021

Advocates appeared:
A.V.Muley, Advocate, K.S.Motwani, Advocate

The main legal point established is that the definition of 'domestic relationship' under the DV Act requires a shared household, and a mere social visit does not fulfill this requirement.

Headnote:

DV Act - Quashment of Proceedings - Section 12, Section 2(a), Section 2(f), Section 2(g), Section 3 - Summary: The court quashed the proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) against the parents-in-law and sisters-in-law of the respondent, as the pleadings did not make out a case of shared household or domestic relationship as defined by the Act. The court emphasized that a mere social visit cannot establish a shared household, and legislative intent cannot be subverted by clever drafting to rope in relatives of the husband.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought quashment of proceedings initiated under the DV Act by the respondent, who alleged domestic violence. The court considered the definition of 'aggrieved person' and 'domestic relationship' under the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the pleadings did not establish a case of shared household or domestic relationship as defined by the DV Act, and therefore quashed the proceedings against the parents-in-law and sisters-in-law of the respondent.

Issues: The main issue was whether the pleadings made out a case of domestic violence against the parents-in-law and sisters-in-law of the respondent under the DV Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a mere social visit cannot establish a shared household, and legislative intent cannot be subverted by clever drafting to rope in relatives of the husband.

Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings against the parents-in-law and sisters-in-law of the respondent under the DV Act.

JUDGMENT

ROHIT B.DEO,J. - With consent the petition is finally heard at the admission stage.

2. The petitioners are seeking quashment of proceedings initiated by respondent Mrs. Apurva under Section 12 and cognate provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DV Act').

3. Petitioner 1 is the husband, petitioner 3 the mother-in-law, petitioner 4 the father-in-law and petitioners 2, 5 and 6 the sisters-in-law of Mrs. Apurva.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Muley states that the petition is not pressed qua petitioner 1 Ravi. Mr. Muley would submit that qua the other petitioners, the learned Magistrate committed a jurisdictional error in taking cognizance of the application under the DV Act. The extension of the submission is that the application, holistically read and understood, does not make out a case of domestic violence against the parents-in-law and the sisters-in-law of Mrs. Apurva. Mr. Motwani would submit, inviting my attention to the pleadings, that the necessary averments as would make out a case of domestic violence are incorporated in the application, and the learned Magistrate committed no error in taking cognizance.

5. Section 2 (a) of the act defines aggrieved person to mean 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.

6. Section 2 (f) defines domestic relationship to mean 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 joint family.

7. Section 2 (g) provides that domestic violence shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in Section 3.

8. Section 3 of the Act reads thus:

3. Definitions of domestic violence.--For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it--

(a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

Explanation I.--For the purposes of this section,--

(i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force;

(ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;

(iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes

(a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and

(b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested;

(iv) "economic abuse" includes

,

(a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared

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