IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the parties.

2. The present Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 16th September, 2023 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 2022, allowing the Appeal and setting aside the order dated 18th October, 2022 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, 40th Court at Girgaon, Mumbai in C.C.No.37/DV/ 2022 dismissing the D.V application as against the present Petitioner.

3. The facts of the case are that the Respondent No. 1 had filed an Application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'D.V. Act'), bearing C.C.No.37/DV/2022, claiming reliefs under Sections 17, 18, 20 and 22 of the D.V. Act. In the said application, the Respondent No 1 has impleaded her husband, her mother in law, her unmarried brother in law and the present Petitioner who is the married sister in law.

4. The cause title of the Application would indicate that the Respondent No 1's husband, mother and brother are residing at 'Siddesh Jyoti Tower' which is the shared-household whereas the address of the present Petitioner is shown of her matrimonial house i.e. Room No. 3, Ground floor, Doctor's Quarters Building. The Metropolitan Magistrate before proceeding further called upon the Respondent No. 1 to satisfy on the point of maintainability of the Application under the D.V. Act against the present Petitioner. The Metropolitan Magistrate considered the definition of the 'Respondent' under Section 2(q) and held that the Petitioner though relative of the Respondent No. 1 is residing separately with her own family and was not in 'domestic relationship' as the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 never lived together in the shared household together. The Metropolitan Magistrate by the order dated 18th October, 2022, dismissed the Application against the Petitioner and issued notice only to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 in the said Application.

5. As against the order dismissing the Application against the Petitioner, Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 2022 was filed by the Respondent No. 1 herein, which came to be allowed and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 18th October, 2022 was quashed and set aside.

6. The Sessions Court relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi reported in (2022) 8 SCC 90 and the decision of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Ali Hamid Daruwala v. Mrs.Nahid Rishad Cooper & Ors. passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 171 of 2022. The Sessions Court held that the pleadings in the Application filed by the Respondent No. 1 would indicate that the Petitioner had indulged in acts of domestic violence and as to whether the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1 have domestic relationship or not is the question of fact which can be decided at the time of trial when the parties lead their evidence in support of their case.

7. Heard Mr. Satyavrat Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Subodh Desai, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1.

8. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that it is the specific case of the Respondent No. 1 in the D.V. application that the Petitioner is the married sister-in-law of the Applicant, who was married on 20th June, 2021 prior to the marriage of the Respondent No. 1 on 20th November, 2021. He submits that considering the admitted position of the Petitioner residing in her matrimonial house, there was no domestic relationship between the parties within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act, as the parties did not live or even in the past had lived together in the shared household. Pointing out to the pleadings in the application, he submits that the allegations made therein are general allegations without any specific act attributed to the Petitioner. He submits that the allegation is that the Petitioner used to spend her whole day at the shared household as her matrimonial