The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'aggrieved person' and 'domestic relationship' under the Domestic Violence Act and the application of these definitions to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties involved.

JUDGMENT :

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.

Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby to set aside the order dated 14.1.2019 passed by ASJ-5 South East District, Saket Court, New Delhi, in criminal appeal 204183/2016.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got married on 30.06.2006 and left House No.538, Sector-37, Faridabad for her matrimonial home and the petitioner till date is happily residing in her matrimonial home and is settled in United States of America.

3. On 16.01.2005, the respondent Ms. Ruchika Gupta married with Mr.Nitin Gupta, who is real brother of the petitioner and the respondent is real sister in law of the petitioner. The marriage was solemnised on 16.1.2005 at Pisces Garden, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. Both the parties set up their matrimonial home at H.No. 538 Sector-37 Faridabad.

4. Further case of the petitioner is that approximately one year after the Petitioner's marriage, i.e. in 2007, differences arose in the matrimonial life of the petitioner's brother and the respondent, as the respondent misused the trust reposed on her by the petitioner's brother and his family members, by siphoning huge sums of money from the bank account of the petitioner's mother i.e. Smt Savita Gupta. The Respondent started a series of false and frivolous complaints and court cases against her husband and his family members including the petitioner herein by falsely claiming harassment for dowry, only as a cover for the financial embezzlement done by her with her husband's family.

5. The Respondent preferred a complaint under Section 12 of the Prevention of Women from Domestic violence Act against her husband and his family members including the petitioner alleging by husband and his family members including the petitioner on false and concocted facts. In addition, a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and a FIR under Section 498- A/406/ 34 IPC was also lodged.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner moved an application seeking deletion from array of parties in the petition under section 12 DV Act filed against respondent's husband and his family members including the petitioner.

7. The Ld. Trial Court was pleased to drop all proceedings against the petitioner while observing that the incidents of violence, as per Domestic Violence report filed by the protection officer, started only after the marriage of the petitioner and there was no domestic relation between the petitioner and the respondent at the time of filing of the present petition. The petitioner was already married in the year 2006 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2007.

8. Being aggrieved, respondent filed the criminal revision petition against the said order. The same was allowed vide order dated 14.01.2019 by the Sessions Court.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was filed in the year 2007 whereas the petitioner was already married and started staying separately in her matrimonial home from 2006 itself i.e. prior to filing of the petition, meaning thereby the petitioner was not in domestic relationship with the respondent at the time when the petition was originally filed before the Trial Court in the year 2007.

10. It is further submitted that the Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that even as per the domestic violence report filed by the protection officer, the respondent herself had stated that "my husband is a drunkard who slapped and hit me with fists and forced me out of the house at around 3.00 am at night and called at my parent's place and asked them to keep their daughter with them. Forced out of the house after physical harassment complainant stayed at Nand's house i.e. Shilpa Aggarwal at Sarita Vihar."

11. Assuming though not admitting the aforesaid fact, even as per the respondent, the petitioner helped her sister in l