Proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act initiated with vague allegations and lacking material particulars constitute an abuse of process and are unsustainable in law.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr.Himanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1/State and Mr.Anurag Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

2. The petitioners have filed this petition with the following prayer:

“A) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ/Order/Direction of the appropriate writ directing the quashing of the impugned proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, initiated by way of undated complaint and Domestic Incident Report and Application dated 19.10.2022, as well as quash any and all proceedings and actions arising therefrom on the ground of abuse of process of law;

B) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a Writ/Order/Direction of the appropriate writ directing the quashing and setting aside of impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the Ld. JMFC, Surajpur, dismissing the present Petitioners' application regarding non-maintainability of the proceedings under DV Act; and C) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass such other and further orders, as it deems fit and proper in the facts of the case, and in the interest of justice.”

3. Facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were married at Balia, Uttar Pradesh, according to Hindu rites and rituals on 27.06.2018. Out of the said wedlock, two children were born, namely: elder son Aarav Singh, aged about 6 years; and younger son Arnav Singh, aged about 4 years. Soon after the birth of their first child, the behaviour of respondent No. 2 towards petitioner No. 1 and his family members became abusive, violent, dispassionate, and apathetic. Immediately after the birth of the second child, respondent No. 2 insisted that the elder son be given in adoption to her sister, Ms. Nikita Singh, who is separated from her husband and resides at her paternal home. Upon petitioner No. 1’s refusal to accede to such demand, respondent No. 2 became even more abusive and violent.

4. In or around August 2021, respondent No. 2 left the matrimonial home and went to her maternal home at Bishrampur along with the children for a period of two months, and thereafter refused to return. Petitioner No. 1 made several attempts to bring her back, but all such efforts were met with non-cooperation. On 05.03.2022, petitioner No. 1 once again went to Bishrampur to bring respondent No. 2 back to the matrimonial home. Eventually, with the intervention of third parties, respondent No. 2 returned on 07.03.2022 along with the children, subject to the express condition that petitioner No. 1 would sever all ties with his family and reside separately with her. Within two days of her return, respondent No. 2 resumed her earlier abusive behaviour. She neglected the household and the children, behaved in an inappropriate and abusive manner in public, and repeatedly threatened to commit suicide. Thereafter, multiple police complaints and litigations were initiated between the parties.

5. The principal cause of dispute has consistently been respondent No. 2’s insistence that one of the children be given in legal adoption to her sister, solely on the ground that her sister is separated from her husband and does not have children of her own. Respondent No. 2 was never interested in resolving the matrimonial disputes, but was solely focused on securing custody of both minor children. In furtherance of the said objective, she instituted four different cases in two different jurisdictions under four separate statutes, clearly engaging in forum shopping and misuse of the judicial process.

6. The above facts clearly demonstrate that the dispute between the parties is essentially a custody dispute, and that the proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are nothing but an attempt to harass, pressure, and intimidate petitioner No. 1 into either relinquishing his parental rights or succumbing to prolonged and o