ARUN KUMAR, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Despite adjournment for appearance of opposite party no.2, none appeared on her behalf even today.

2. The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire proceeding against the petitioner in Domestic Violence Case No.68 of 2013 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna.

3. A brief fact giving rise to the case is that opposite party no.2 filed Domestic Violence Case No.68 of 2013 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna alleging therein that she was married to one Pankaj Kumar Rastogi, a Software Engineer employed in Tech Mahindra and presently posted at Sunburry, London, U.K. in the year 2010 and she started living with her husband in London. The petitioner, respondent no.17 in the complaint, a co-employee of her husband in the same organization, also used to live in the same house. Husband used to spent all money upon the petitioner and they were in live-in relationship and illicit relationship caused mental torture and agony to the complainant, they hatched up a conspiracy and sent back the complainant to India on the pretext of pursuing higher education in India. The husband of the complainant has no any attachment with her so used to ignore and in fact deserted her. Even during her stay in London, her husband also used to make demand of money from her parents and leading adulterous life with this petitioner having illicit relationship. Other family members keeping her jewelleries and other articles also kicked out from the matrimonial home.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted position that the petitioner is a married lady, she resides with her husband and only allegation is that she being a Software Engineer is employed in Tech Mahindra as the husband of the complainant is and both were living in the same house. However, the allegation of living together or live-in relationship or illicit relationship is outrightly denied and now presently the petitioner resides in United States of America with her husband posted in another company. It is also submitted that petitioner was never in domestic relationship with the complainant and her husband rather she is stranger to the family, only a colleague of the complainant’s husband. If any person being in domestic relationship commits domestic violence only in that case a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act is maintainable otherwise not.

5. Learned counsel for the State submits that the allegation is specific against the petitioner that she shared the house in London along with the complainant’s husband and were in live-in relationship.

6. Having considered rival submissions and on perusal of record, first let us examine whether the petitioner is in domestic relationship with the complainant or her husband. This is admitted position that she is not a family member of the husband of the complainant, even not related either by consanguinity or marriage as she is already married with another person. The terms ‘aggrieved person’ and ‘domestic relationship’ as well as the ‘respondent’ are defined in Section 2(a) (f) and (q) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The definitions are as follows:—

“2(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;

(b)……….

(c)……….

(d)……….

(e)……….

(f) “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;

(g)……….

(h)……….

(i)……….

(j)……….

(k)……….

(l)……….

(m)……….

(n)……….

(o)……….

(p)……….

(q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has

Click Here to Read the rest of this document