SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Ker) 409

High Court of Kerala
A. HARIPRASAD, J.

Biju Sreenilayam
Versus
Raji & Others
Crl.M.C. No. 2973 of 2012
Decided on: 16-07-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:K.B. Arunkumar, Ranjit Babu, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, R. Sunil Kumar, A. Salini Lal, Advocates, R3, Justin Jacob, Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a person to be arraigned as a co-respondent in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Act, there must be a domestic relationship between the petitioner and that person. The court also clarified the scope of the concept of 'relationship in the nature of marriage' under the Act.

Headnote:

Domestic Violence - Domestic Relationship - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Section 2(a), Section 2(f), Section 2(q) - [SUMMARY]

Fact of the Case:

The daughter-in-law sought relief under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging domestic violence by her mother-in-law and her lover. The court was tasked with determining whether the daughter-in-law could arraign the lover of her mother-in-law as a co-respondent in the application under Section 12 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the daughter-in-law's action against the lover of her mother-in-law was misconceived and unsustainable as there was no domestic relationship between the daughter-in-law and the lover of her mother-in-law. The court allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings against the second respondent.

Issues: The key issue was whether the daughter-in-law could include the lover of her mother-in-law as a co-respondent in the application under Section 12 of the Act, alleging domestic violence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definitions of 'aggrieved person,' 'domestic relationship,' and 'respondent' under the Act. It emphasized that a person can only be arraigned as a co-respondent in a proceeding under Section 12 of the Act by a petitioner alleging domestic violence if there is a domestic relationship between the petitioner and that person. The court also clarified that the concept of 'relationship in the nature of marriage' can only be invoked by a female partner against the male partner and not by a third party to the said relationship.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed all proceedings against the second respondent, and dismissed all pending interlocutory applications.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court held that a person can be arraigned as a co-respondent under Section 12 of the Act only if there is a domestic relationship between the petitioner and that person. (!) - Domestic relationship requires two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as family members living together as a joint family. (!) (!) - The definition of "aggrieved person" is a woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges domestic violence; the aggrieved person must be a woman. (!) - The concept of "relationship in the nature of marriage" is akin to a common-law-like relationship and must involve living together in a shared household for a significant period, with criteria similar to a common-law marriage, and cannot be inferred for a third party against a lover of another person. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The Supreme Court in Velusamy/Indra Sarma guidance is cited to distinguish live-in relationships from a relationship in the nature of marriage; only the female partner may invoke certain protections against the male partner, not a third party. (!) (!) - The petition was allowed; proceedings against the second respondent were quashed due to lack of domestic relationship between the petitioner and the lover of her mother-in-law. (!) (!)

How to determine whether a lover of a mother-in-law can be arraigned as a co-respondent under Section 12 of the Act?

What is the meaning and requirements of a "domestic relationship" under the Act as applied to a person not in a relationship with the aggrieved person but in a relationship with the aggrieved person’s spouse or in-law?

What is the scope of "relationship in the nature of marriage" and who may invoke it under the Act?


Judgment :

A. Hariprasad, J.

1. The startling legal question that crops up for determination in this proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C is the following : Can a daughter-in-law arraign lover/paramour of her mother-in-law as a co-respondent in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( in short 'the Act') alleging domestic violence on the premise that they are in a 'domestic relationship' ?

2. Relevant facts in brief :

Petitioner herein is the second respondent before the trial court. First respondent before the trial court is the second respondent in this petition. The petitioner before the court below is the first respondent in this proceedings.

3. For convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to in their respective ranks in the proceedings before the trial court. First respondent's son deceased Radhakrishnan married the petitioner on 16-01-2005. In Annexure 1 petition, the petitioner has levelled lot of allegations about the character and conduct of the first respondent. The petitioner has gone to the extent of alleging that the first respondent is leading an amoral life; indulging in a promiscuous life and engaging in illicit distillation. On account of this infamous life of the first respondent, her husband and the husband of the petitioner had committed suicide. It is the allegation that after appropriating her gold ornaments and cash, the first respondent and her lover, the second respondent, drove the petitioner out of the shared household. With this averments she sought reliefs against both the respondents.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the second respondent (petitioner herein) submitted that there is no legal basis for impleading him in the proceedings. According to the learned counsel, the petition is not maintainable. Going by the averments in Annexure 1 application, there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent and therefore she cannot allege that the second respondent has committed any act falling within the definition of "domestic violence" in Section 3 of the Act.

6. For appreciating these contentions, it is apposite to consider some definitions in the Act. 'Aggrieved person' is defined in Section 2(a) of the Act. It reads as follows :

"2(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;"

7. On a reading of the definition, it can be seen that the aggrieved person can only be a female. It is also evident that such a woman must be or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent. Further, she must make an allegation that she has been subjected to any act of domestic violence, defined in Section 3 of the Act, by the respondent. It is amply clear that the definition of 'aggrieved person' does not restrict itself to a woman in her capacity as wife alone. It is essential that the aggrieved person must be a woman, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who makes a complaint of domestic violence.

8. Now, we shall look into the definition of 'Domestic Relationship' of Section 2(f) of the Act. It reads as follows :

"2(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;"

9. As it is clear from the definition, the 'domestic relationship' means a relationship between two persons related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or as family members living together as a joint family. It is also essential that the two persons must live or at any point of t































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top