The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a complaint under the DV Act to proceed against the respondents, they must have a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and live in a shared household with them.

JUDGMENT

MANISH PITALE, J. - Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

Admit.

Learned APP appearing on behalf of non-applicant No.1 - State waives notice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for non-applicant No.1-State. Non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 were duly served, but they have chosen not to appear before this Court. On 15.07.2021, this Court had adjourned the present application to give a last chance to non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 to appear before this Court.

3. Today, when the application is called out for hearing, again there is no representation on behalf of non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3. In this situation, the application was taken up for final hearing.

4. Mr. Patwardhan, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the application/complaint filed by non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 before the Magistrate under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2003, (hereinafter referred to as "DV Act"), is not maintainable against the applicants. It is pointed out that Applicant No.1 is bother-in-law, Applicant No. 2 is father-in-law and applicant No. 3 is mother-in-law of non-applicant No.2. The complaint before the Magistrate has been filed against the husband of non-applicant No.2 and the applicants before this Courtb. By inviting attention to the contents of the said complaint dated 17.11.2018, filed under Sections 11, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the DV Act, the learned counsel for the applicants highlighted that all the allegations have been made against the husband and the specific prayers made in the application also pertain to the husband. It is emphasized that nowhere in the complaint, is it stated that applicants before this Court have lived in the same house with non-applicant No. 2 and her husband. The learned counsel for the applicant invited attention of this Court to various provisions of the DV Act and submitted that the applicants cannot be said to be having a domestic relationship with non-applicant No.2 and that, therefore, the complaint deserves to be quashed at this stage itself. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in case of Mr. Prabhakar Mohite and Anr vrs. The State of Maharashtra and anr. reported in 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 4508.

5. Mr. Ashirgade, learned APP has also referred to the contents of the complaint filed by non-applicant No.2 and it is stated that the allegations appeared to be made against the husband and there is no averment regarding the applicants having shared a household with non-applicant No.2. As noted above, non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have chosen not be appear before this Court, despite being served.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP, for arriving at a conclusion as to whether the application filed by non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, under the provisions of DV Act, deserves to be quashed insofar as the applicants are concerned, it is necessary to refer to the definitions of relevant terms in the DV Act. Section 2(f) defines "Domestic Relationship"; Section 2(g) defines "Domestic Violence"; Section 2(q) defines "Respondent" and Section 2(s) defines "Shared Household".

A perusal of the aforesaid terms, as defined under DV Act, would show that the definitions of "Domestic Relationship" and "Shared Household" are inter-related and that a person can be said to have a domestic relationship with the aggrieved woman, if that person lives or at any stage has lived in a shared household with the aggrieved woman. The definition of "respondent" also specifically states that it has to be a person who has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved woman.

7. Therefore, to answer the said definitions, it would be necessary that the applicants before this Court fall within the definition of "respondent", in the backdrop of the definitions of "domestic relationship" and "shared household", as given in the DV Act. It is only then that they can be alleged to have committed domestic violence as de