IMPORTANT POINT
Specific allegations must be made against relatives in domestic violence cases to avoid abuse of process and ensure that they are not unjustly implicated.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2. In this petition, challenge is to the judgment and order dtd. 25/3/2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangrulpir, District-Washim, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the application Exh.20 made by the petitioners, who have been arrayed as non-applicant nos.8 to 19 in D.V. Case No.13/2017 filed under Sec. 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the D.V. Act' for short).

3. In this judgment, the parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the proceeding before the trial Court. The respondent-original applicant has filed the application in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mangrulpir under Sec. 12 of the D.V. Act for grant of protection. It is the case of the respondent that the marriage between her and original nonapplicant no.1 was performed on 11/6/2016. Non-applicant nos.1 to 6 are residing together. The respondent started residing with them. It is stated that non-applicant nos.1 to 6, after marriage, ill-treated the respondent. The respondent was subjected to domestic violence by non-applicant nos.1 to 7 and therefore she filed the case against them under the D.V. Act.

4. The petitioners, after reporting their appearance before the learned Magistrate, made application Exh.20 for deletion of their names from the array of the party. This application was rejected vide order dtd. 25/3/2019. It is their case that the allegations made against them are vague and general. They are relatives of the respondent and non-applicant nos.1 to 7. They have not been residing with them. They are not residing in the same village with the respondent. They have been roped in without any reason. No case has been made out against them under the D.V. Act for claiming protection.

5. The respondent has filed the reply to the said application. In her reply, she tried to justify initiation of the proceeding against the petitioners.

6. The learned Magistrate, on going through the application, found that the averments made in the application are sufficient to proceed against the petitioners and rejected the said application.

7. I have heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and the learned advocate for the respondent. Perused the record and proceedings.

8. The learned advocate for the petitioners took me through the main application filed under Sec. 12 of the D.V. Act by the respondent and submitted that the allegations made against the petitioners (original non-applicant nos.8 to 19) are vague and general. No specific role has been attributed to them. No other particulars of torture or domestic violence have been stated in the application. The learned advocate submitted that the petitioners are not residing with the respondent. Learned advocate submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case only because they are relatives of the non-applicant nos.1 to 6. Learned advocate submitted that continuation of the proceeding against them would be an abuse of process of law.

9. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that in her application the respondent has made the necessary averments to prima facie establish the domestic violence. The learned advocate submitted that in the application specific role has been attributed to the petitioners. The learned advocate submitted that the facts pleaded in the application are sufficient to justify the continuation of the application against the petitioners.

10. Undisputedly, the petitioners are the relatives of the nonapplicant nos.1 to 7. It is also undisputed that they are not residing at Darwha, where the respondent and her family members are residing. It needs to be mentioned at this stage that as far as nonapplicant nos.1 to 7 are concerned, specific role has been attributed to them in the application filed by the respondent. The allegations made against non-applicant nos