The definition of 'shared household' requires permanency, and transient residency does not qualify for protections under the Domestic Violence Act.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. (ORAL)

CRL.M.A. 7699/2022 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 1817/2022

1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ["CrPC"], the petitioner assails an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court-02, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi ["MM"] dated 27.09.2021 in CIS No. 194/2021, to the extent that summons in her complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ["the DV Act"] were not issued to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The petitioner also assails the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, West, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, dated 16.03.2022 in Crl. Appeal No. 130/2021, whereby the aforesaid order of the MM was affirmed in appeal.

2. The respondent No. 1 in these proceedings is the petitioner's husband and the respondent No. 2 is her mother-in-law. The respondent No. 3 is the petitioner's sister-in-law (being her husband's sister) and the respondent No. 4 is the husband of the respondent No.3.

3. The petitioner filed an application under Sections 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the DV Act in March, 2021. All the four respondents were arrayed as accused in the said application. By an order dated 19.03.2021, notice was issued to the respondent No. 1 and the matter was adjourned for consideration on the point of issuance of summons to other respondents. By the order dated 27.09.2021, the MM issued summons to the respondent No. 2 also, but came to the conclusion that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had not been residing in the shared household and no summons were therefore issued to them.

4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.09.2021 by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act. The Appellate Court, by the impugned order dated 16.03.2022, affirmed the view taken by the MM, relying upon the judgment of this Court in Harbans Lal Malik vs. Payal Malik, (2010) 118 DRJ 582.

5. Having heard Mr. C.P. Vig, learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the orders of the MM and the Appellate Court do not call for interference by this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.

6. The DV Act itself defines the terms "aggrieved persons", "domestic relationship" and "shared household" in the following terms:-

"Section 2. Definitions - In this act, unless the context otherwise requires -

(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;

xxxx xxxx xxxx

(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;

xxxx xxxx xxxx

(s) "shared household" means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a house hold whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;"

[Emphasis su