The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a shared household and domestic relationship for invoking the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. By this application, the applicants are seeking quashing of complaint dated 16/01/2020, filed by the respondents under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'D.V.Act'). The applicant No.1 is the husband of respondent No.1, while the other applicants are relatives of the applicant No.1.

3. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that provisions of the D.V. Act could not have been invoked by the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the present case. This contention is based on interpretation of the terms "aggrieved person", "domestic relationship", "domestic violence", "respondent" and "shared household", as defined under the provisions of the D.V.Act. The applicants have placed on record documents to support their contention that applicant Nos.2 to 8 are residents of various places and they were not living in the matrimonial house or the shared household, as claimed by the respondent No.1. On this basis it is submitted that insofar as said applicants are concerned, on the face of it, the provisions of the D.V. Act could not have been invoked.

4. Mr. Band, learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that insofar as applicant Nos.2 to 8 are concerned, the provisions of the D.V. Act could not have been invoked and this is evident from the complaint filed by the respondents, wherein addresses of applicant Nos.2 to 8 would show that they were not living with the applicant No.1 and the respondent No.1 after their marriage. By inviting attention to the provisions of the D.V. Act, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that when a bare reading of the complaint itself did not divulge domestic relationship or shared household between the applicant Nos.2 to 8 and the respondent No.1, there was no question of the complaint proceeding against the said applicants any further. The learned counsel invited attention of this Court to Section 2(f) which defines "domestic relationship" and Section 2(s) which defines "shared household", to contend that applicant Nos.2 to 8 could not be arrayed as respondents in the said complaint, and the allegation of domestic violence under Section 3 of the D.V. Act also could not be made against them.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414 , Shyamlal Devda and others vs. Parimala, (2020) 3 MhLJ(Cri) 33 (S.C.) and judgments of this Court in the cases ofPrabhakar Mohite & anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra and anr.,2018 SCCOnLineBom 3775 and Vaibhav s/o Dattuji Jagtap and others vs. Kavita w/o Prakashrao Jagtap and anr. (Cr.Appln.(APL) 737 of 2019 (decided on 28/01/2021))

6. It was also submitted that vague, general and omnibus allegations were made against the applicants and that the complaint deserves to be quashed on that ground also.

7. On the other hand Mr. Abdul Subhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present application, on the ground that alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Sessions Court under Section 29 of the D.V. Act was available to the applicants. For this purpose, the learned counsel for the respondents relied upon judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare vs. Mangala w/o Pratap Bansar, (2018) 3 MhLJ 913 and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Roop Lal and others vs. Manpreet Kaur,2020 AllMR(Cri)(Jou) 435 .

8. Apart from the aforesaid preliminary objection, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complaint elaborately raised allegations against all the applicants and that their specific roles had been stated. The allegations could not be said to be vague and omnibu