Point of Law : A “shared household" is defined in section 2(s) as a household where person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or with respondent.

JUDGMENT :

An employer and his wife who were saddled with a criminal prosecution initiated at the instance of his erstwhile employee under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, 'the DV Act') are the petitioners.

2. The 2nd respondent herein filed an application (Ext.P2) under Section 12 of the DV Act against six persons at the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court, Adoor (for short, 'the court below’). The petitioners herein are respondents 1 and 2. A vague allegation has been made in the first paragraph of Ext. P2 to bring the application within the ambit of the DV Act that the petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the 2nd respondent. However, the entire reading of Ext. P2 application would show that the petitioners are none other than the 2nd respondent’s employer and wife. The respondents 3 to 5 in Ext.P2 are two of her co-employees and their parents.

3. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent was an employee of the 1st petitioner in a business concern run by him under the name and style 'M.R. Enterprises' at Adoor. The 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd respondent worked in the said business concern as collection agent for a short period from November 2014 to March 2016, and thereafter, she resigned from the job. In Ext. P2, it is alleged that the 1st petitioner had ill will towards the 2nd respondent following her resignation from his business concern in 2016. It is further alleged that during their employee-employer relationship, the 2nd respondent had given a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the 1st petitioner at his instance. It is also alleged that the 1st petitioner has ill-treated, abused, and intimidated the 2nd respondent by various means, and he has even tried to assault her sexually. There is also an allegation that after the resignation of the 2nd respondent, the petitioners, along with the remaining respondents in Ext. P2, trespassed into the house of the 2nd respondent as well as her place of employment and criminally intimidated her. It is also alleged that while the 2nd respondent was working at the business establishment of the 1st petitioner, he took away cheque leaves belonging to her. The prayer in Ext. P2 is to grant a protection order in favor of the 2nd respondent to prohibit the petitioners and the remaining respondents in Ext. P2 from entering into her house as well as at her place of employment, namely 'Micro Finance,’ and making any disturbances. There is a further prayer to give a direction to the 1st petitioner to return the cheque leaves belonging to the 2nd respondent.

4. On receipt of Ext.P2 application, the court below issued a notice of appearance to the petitioners and others under section 13 of the DV Act. It also passed ex parte interim protection and residence orders under section 23(2). The petitioners seek to quash Ext. P2 application on the ground that it is not maintainable under section 12 of the DV Act as there is no domestic relationship between them and the 2nd respondent.

5. I have heard Sri. Manu Ramachandran, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice has been served to the 2nd respondent, there is no appearance.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Manu Ramachandran submitted that the 2nd respondent is not an 'aggrieved person' as defined under Section 2(a) of the DV Act, and even on the face of Ext.P2 application, there is no domestic relationship between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent, and hence, the application under section 12 of the DV Act is not maintainable. The learned counsel further submitted that the institution of the proceedings under the DV Act has an oblique motive and is a fallout of the strained employer–employee relationship and as such, it is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

7. The DV Act was enacted with the avowed object of protecting women against the violence that occurs within the family an