Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sabina, J.
Aishwarya Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
Shruti Chauhan And Another - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1892 of 2017
Decided On : 07-02-2018
Domestic Violence Act - Shared Household - The court held that the petitioner, being the married sister-in-law of the respondent, was not residing in the shared household and therefore the proceedings against her under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were an abuse of process of law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders dated 13.10.2017 and 14.11.2017, as she was accused under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The petitioner, a married sister-in-law of the respondent, was residing in a different district from the respondent's shared household.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, although a married sister-in-law of the respondent, was not residing in the shared household and therefore the proceedings against her were an abuse of process of law.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner, as a married sister-in-law residing in a different district, could be held liable under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere visits to the parents' household did not constitute residing in the shared household, and in the present case, the proceedings against the petitioner were an abuse of process of law.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 12 of the Act were dropped.
JUDGMENT
Sabina, J —Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the orders dated 13.10.2017 and 14.11.2017.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 1 has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') . Petitioner has also been arrayed as an accused. Petitioner is the married sister-in-law of respondent No. 1. Petitioner got married on 09.05.2005, whereas, respondent No. 1 got married on 18.11.2013. Petitioner is residing in her matrimonial home in district Rajsamand after the date of her marriage, whereas, respondent No. 1 resides in her matrimonial home after her marriage at Ajmer. Thus, the petitioner was residing in a different district in the State of Rajasthan than the respondent No. 1. Hence, proceedings qua the petitioner was liable to be dropped as she was not living in the shared household of respondent No. 1.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has opposed the petition.
3. Admittedly, petitioner is the married Sister-in-law of respondent No. 1. Petitioner had got married much before respondent No. 1 got married to the brother of the petitioner. Petitioner is admittedly residing in her matrimonial home. Merely because the petitioner comes to visit her parents at Ajmer does not mean that she was also residing in the shared household.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, proceedings lodged against the petitioner under the Act would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Proceedings qua the petitioner in the complaint filed by respondent no. 1 under Section 12 of the Act are dropped.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
