The existence of a familial relationship is sufficient to sustain domestic violence proceedings under the Act, regardless of the respondent's residence status.

JUDGMENT :

(MITALI THAKURIA, J.)

Heard Ms. K. Malakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. B. Soren, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. This application is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying for quashing and setting aside of the impugned Notice and impugned Order dated 29.01.2024 passed in connection with the D.V. Case No.08/2024, registered under Sections 12 /18/19/20/21/22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the present respondent No. 2 [complainant in D.V. Case No.08/2024] was married to Sri Ashish Chhabra on 08.10.2009, as per Hindu rituals, at her parental residence in Kamrup (M) District. She has alleged that the intervention of the present petitioner [respondent No. 4 in D.V. Case No. 08/2024], who is her brother-in-law, negatively influenced the dynamics of her marital relationship with her husband. She further alleged that during her visit to her matrimonial home in August 2023, the present petitioner unjustifiably instigated her husband against her. It is also alleged that the petitioner has inflated ego, considering himself superior to everyone, and used to tell the aggrieved person/present respondent No.2 that society is male dominated, where a female must comply with the choices and desires of the male members of the household and remain subordinate to them. She further alleged that the petitioner strategically damaged her relationship with her parents and other family members through unfounded accusations and that she has been subjected to severe mental and physical torture by respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 [the present petitioner in D.V. Case No. 08/2024]. Having no other alternative, she filed a domestic violence case seeking protection under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; accommodation under Section 19 (f); monetary relief of Rs. 2,72,00,000/- under Section 20 ; interim relief of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 23 (2); custody of her children under Section 21 ; and compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under Section 22 , along with interim prayers for the reliefs as mentioned.

4. However, it is the case of the present petitioner that respondent No. 2 sent the notice of D.V. Case No. 08/2024 to the petitioner at his parents’ residential address, without mentioning any date. Further, the petitioner’s parents informed him about the said notice over the phone. The petitioner was surprised by the misleading and false statements made by respondent No. 2 in the complaint, especially since respondent No. 2 had never stayed with the petitioner. The petitioner is a national of Singapore and has been residing there since 1997, whereas respondent No. 2 has all along been residing with her husband, namely Sri Ashish Chhabra, who is the petitioner’s younger brother at Kahikuchi, Kamrup (M), Assam. Subsequently, the petitioner enquired about the notice with his younger brother, who informed him that his wife (i.e., present respondent No. 2) had filed the said case against him and his family due to a dispute between them regarding their marital relationship and their business.

5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed in D