Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
Rashmi Mehrotra – Appellant
Versus
Manvi Sheth – Respondent
Crim. Revision Application No. 270 of 2023
Decided on : 01-02-2024.
Domestic Violence - Domestic Relationship - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12, Section 29 - [Section 2(f), Section 2(s)] - The court discussed the definition of domestic relationship and shared household under the DV Act and concluded that the wife had a right to reside in either of the premises owned by the in-laws, establishing a domestic relationship. The court also highlighted the relevance of specific pleadings and the application of the decision in Prabha Tyagi v Kamlesh Devi to establish a subsisting domestic relationship.
Fact of the Case:
The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and in-laws, seeking relief from domestic violence. The Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the in-laws from the proceedings, but the Sessions Court allowed the wife's appeal and set aside the order of discharge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the wife had a right to reside in either of the premises owned by the in-laws, establishing a domestic relationship. It held that the specific pleadings in the wife's application indicated that the parties resided together in a joint family, satisfying the definition of a domestic relationship under the DV Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the wife had a domestic relationship with her in-laws, and whether the application under section 12 of the DV Act disclosed the existence of a domestic relationship.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of domestic relationship and shared household under the DV Act, emphasizing the relevance of specific pleadings and the application of the decision in Prabha Tyagi v Kamlesh Devi to establish a subsisting domestic relationship.
Final Decision: The revision application was dismissed, and the order of the Sessions Court allowing the wife's appeal and setting aside the discharge of the in-laws was upheld.
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal points are as follows:
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) (!) .
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 (!) .
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.
JUDGMENT:
1. Revision application challenges the order dated 17th July 2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2022 allowing the Appeal of Respondent No.1 and setting aside the order dated 6th April, 2022 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the Applicants from the proceedings filed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [for short “the DV Act”].
2. The relationship of parties interse is not in dispute. Revision applicants are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 was married to Arjun, the son of revision applicants on 9th February 2020. An application under section 12 of the DV Act came to be filed by respondent no. 1 against her husband and the applicants on 22nd February 2021. The applicants preferred an application dated 17th March 2021 before the Magistrate challenging the maintainability of complaint and for dropping of the proceedings/striking off/discharge/deleting their names from the array of parties as respondents. The said application came to be resisted by respondent no.1. The Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 6th April 2022 discharged the Applicants herein from the proceedings. Against the order of discharge, Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 2022 under Section 29 of the DV Act came to be filed by respondent no. 1. By the impugned order dated 17th July 2023, the appeal was allowed and the order of Magistrate was quashed and set aside.
3. Heard Mr. Shanay Shah, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Mr. Pritesh Burad, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1.
4. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the applicants submits that since inception of marriage, respondent no.1 and the applicant’s son Arjun are residing at A1-801, Gundecha Trillium, Thakur Village, Kandivali East, Mumbai [for short “Gundecha premises”] pursuant to a registered leave and licence agreement whereas the applicants’ residence at all times was 10B, Tower D, Viceroy Park, Thakur Village, Kandivali East, Mumbai [for short “Viceroy premises”]. He would submit that in the application filed under section 12 of the DV Act by respondent no.1, the relief sought is to restrain the respondents from alienating the Complainant and her belongings from the shared matrimonial household being A1-801, Gundecha Trillium, Thakur Village, Kandivali East, Mumbai and to restrain the applicants from dispossessing the complainant from the shared matrimonial household – Gundecha and a direction to the respondents to remove themselves from the shared matrimonial household being Gundecha. He has invited the attention of this Court to the pleadings in paragraph 12 of the complaint that on 11th February 2020, complainant’s grihapravesh was organised at Gundecha which is the shared matrimonial household of complainant where she has been living with Arjun in domestic relationship. He would further point out the pleadings in paragraph 18 of the complaint wherein it is contended that there was quarrel between respondent no.1 and Arjun; at that time the parents of respondent no.1 were residing with respondent no.1 and that respondent no.1’s parents then spoke to the applicants regarding Arjun’s action. He would further point out the pleadings in paragraph 28 of the complaint that shared household of the parties is Gundecha. According to Mr. Shah, it is a specific case in the complaint that the premises at Gundecha is a shared household. He submits that the definition of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of DV Act contemplates a relationship between the parties who lived or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household and that being so, on reading of the complaint as it is, it cannot be said that there was any domestic relationship between the applicants and respondent no.1 as the shared household according to respondent no.1 was Gundecha. He submits that the complaint does not show that the parties at any point of time resided togeth
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the definition of domestic relationship and shared household under the DV Act should be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the statu....
A domestic relationship under the D.V. Act requires actual or past residence in a shared household, and mere visits do not suffice to establish such a relationship.
The right to reside in a shared household is not restricted to actual residence and can be enforced by any woman in a domestic relationship, irrespective of whether she has any right, title, or benef....
A divorced woman cannot claim the right of residence in a shared household based on an earlier domestic relationship with the husband.
Grant of interim maintenance – Denial of relationship of husband and wife – Evidence to be adduced during trial – No interference required
(1) In order to maintain a petition under DV Act aggrieved person has to show that aggrieved person and respondent (man) lived together in a shared household and this could be even from a relationshi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the definitions of 'domestic relationship', 'shared household', and 'domestic violence' under the Protection ....
Strict proof of marriage is not required to establish a domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act, allowing for claims based on cohabitation and the relationship's nature.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
