The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definitions of domestic relationship, economic abuse, and shared household under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and the maintainability of the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

1. This application has been filed for quashing of Domestic Violence case No. 1637-C/2007 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna instituted by Dr. Alka Kumari, wife of Late Dr. Ajay Kumar on the ground that the case does not come within the purview of domestic violence as defined in the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 2005).

2. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother of Late Dr. Ajay Kumar and mother-in-law of the complainant. Petitioners 2, 4 and 6 are the sons of petitioner No. 1 and brother-in- laws of the complainant whereas petitioners 3 and 5 are the wives of petitioners 2 and 4 respectively.

3. The admitted facts are that the complainant married Dr. Ajay Kumar on 29.2.2004. Dr. Ajay was holding the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon in Jharkhand on a consolidated salary of Rs. 14,000/-. Unfortunately during the parliamentary elections, he was given patrolling duty which led.to an incident in which Dr. Ajay Kumar died.

4. The allegations are that at the time of marriage, certain amount of money was paid to petitioner No. 1 as marriage expense. The details are given at paragraph 3 of the complaint petition. At paragraph 6, it is alleged that after the death, the petitioners within one month of the death, when the complainant was in shock and not in a position to think about anything, ........the petitioners without any emotion, not caring the sentiments and pitiable condition, cunningly obtained the signatures of the complainant on vakalatnama and as per their choice used it for their own benefit. It is said that the complainant was compelled to sign on an agreement and she was given a copy of the same. Thereafter it is alleged that she received certain amount of money from the Insurance, Bank deposits etc. The complainant was given only 50 per cent of the said amount and the rest was paid to petitioner No. 1, the mother of the deceased. Against the brothers, it is alleged that they have withdraw the entire amount standing in the name of Dr. Ajay Kumar from Life Insurance Corporation of India, Punjab National Bank, HDFC, Indus Indian Bank without any knowledge of the complainant. She also complaints that all her clothes, camera, certificates and pass book of bank accounts etc. of her husband Dr. Ajay were taken by the accused persons. She claims that she deposited Rs. 5 lakhs in favour of her mother-in-law, her jewellery, album, clothes, ring, digital camera etc. were not returned to her. The complainant also alleges that she was called to Ranchi in December, 2004 and made to sign on a writ petition and was not given the liberty to read its contents. At paragraph 21 of the complaint, it is stated that she was not allowed to enter the house of in-laws and, thus prayed in the complaint filed by her as follows :

"That direct the respondents to handover the death certificate, all policy, bank account and different, account of the Late Dr. Ajay Kumar.

That direct the respondents to return the amount of compensation, insurance policy and deposited amount in several banks which was illegally withdrew by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6.

That the direct of the respondent No. 3 to return five lacs twenty three thousand rupees which she received before marriage of the complainant from member of the maika of complainant by cheque and draft which is mentioned above.

That direct the respondents to return all the articles to the complainant which is mentioned in schedule No. 1 of this petition.

That pass order relief or other relieves in favour of the complainant against the respondents which the complainant entitled under Domestic Violence Act, 2005."

5. The questions that have arisen in this case are :

Whether the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be maintainable?

Whether opposite party No. 2 can legitimately claim that petitioner No. 1 should return all the amount paid to her under the Domestic Violence Act?

6. I will f