Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shanay Shah i/b Ms. Nerissa Almeida
For the Respondent: Mr. Pritesh Burad, Samit Vaviya and Ms. Madhuri Gamre i/b Pritesh Burad Associates

Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:

1. The court emphasized that the definitions of "domestic relationship" and "shared household" under the Domestic Violence Act should be interpreted in a manner that aligns with the statutory provisions, ensuring that the legislative intent is preserved (!) (!) .

2. It was held that a "shared household" includes premises where the parties have resided together in a domestic relationship, regardless of ownership or tenancy status, and that residence can be established through specific pleadings indicating that the parties lived together as a joint family or in a domestic relationship (!) (!) (!) .

3. The court clarified that actual residence is not mandatory for establishing a domestic relationship; rather, the right to reside in the shared household, coupled with the relationship, suffices. The right to reside can exist even if the parties did not physically reside together at all times, especially if the residence was in a shared household owned or occupied by the respondent or the joint family (!) (!) .

4. The decision underscores that the existence of a domestic relationship can be inferred from specific pleadings and factual circumstances, such as residing together, even if the residence was temporary or during a particular period like the COVID-19 pandemic (!) (!) .

5. The court highlighted that the application under the DV Act must disclose the existence of a domestic relationship, which can be established through pleadings that demonstrate residence or shared household, and not solely through the ownership of property or fleeting visits (!) (!) .

6. It was reaffirmed that the legislative definition of "domestic relationship" includes relationships where the parties have lived together or at any point have lived together in a shared household, regardless of ownership or the duration of residence (!) (!) .

7. The court dismissed the revision application, affirming that the pleadings and factual evidence sufficiently established the domestic relationship between the parties, including the residence at "Gundecha premises" after the lockdown was lifted, and that the allegations of domestic violence were substantiated (!) .

8. The court also clarified that the application for discharge or quashing proceedings under the DV Act is not maintainable if the pleadings demonstrate the existence of a domestic relationship and residence in a shared household, emphasizing that the proceedings are civil in nature and that the jurisdiction lies with the magistrate based on the pleadings (!) (!) .

In summary, the judgment underscores the importance of specific pleadings to establish a domestic relationship and clarifies that residence in a shared household, even if temporary or during extraordinary circumstances, can suffice to meet the statutory definition, provided the facts support such a relationship.