Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act was found to be not maintainable because the petitioner was not living in a shared household at the time of filing (!) (!) (!) .

2. The petitioner, a resident of the USA, had settled in her own house in America after leaving her parental home, and she was not living with the respondent in a shared household immediately before filing the application (!) (!) .

3. The court emphasized that the definition of 'domestic relationship' under the Act requires the parties to have lived together in a shared household. Merely having a past relationship or property rights does not suffice if the parties have established separate households (!) (!) .

4. The concept of 'living together' in a shared household is crucial; temporary absences or going abroad do not necessarily end the domestic relationship unless a separate household is established and belongings are moved out (!) .

5. Acts of violence committed when the parties are living separately do not fall within the scope of domestic violence under the Act, which is intended to address violence within shared households (!) .

6. The purpose of the Act is to provide remedies to those living in a shared household. Since the petitioner had already established her own household abroad and was not living in the shared household at the time of the application, her claim was considered a misuse of the provisions (!) .

7. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the application was not maintainable given the circumstances of the case, particularly the absence of a shared household at the relevant time (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance.