The definition of shared household under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 includes close family members, and unsubstantiated contentions of non-residency were rejected.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This Revision Petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-

"It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that the revision petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by the Learned Additional Session Judge (Woman Atrocities Cess), Jodhpur, (Raj.) in Criminal Appeal No. 80/2022 and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City on dated 28.06.2022 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 33/2020 N.C.V. No. 15/2020 may kindly be set aside and the name of the petitioners may deleted from the proceeding u/S. 12 & 23 Domestic Violence Act and in alternatively any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court thinks just and proper looking to the circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioners."

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioners are that an application under Section 12 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was preferred by the respondent no. 1 before the Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur Metropolitan City, Jodhpur, and that the notices of the said application was issued against the petitioners to which reply was filed on behalf of them before the learned Court. In the said application, it was averred that the respondent no. 1 was responding with the petitioners after marriage, and that she was harassed with demands of dowry; although the respondents were not present in the learned Court below, since a reply was filed on their behalf, the learned Court below passed an order ex-parte.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on behalf of Ganpat Ram, petitioner no. 1, an application was preferred before the concerned Magistrate stating that petitioners no. 2 and 3, Kumari Bhawna and Kumari Teena, are his unmarried daughters, were not residing in Jodhpur City and in fact did not reside with the respondent no. 1 at any point in time, yet were made party to the case with the sole intent of harassment. and that, an application was made to this effect before the learned Court below, and that despite the same being brought to the notice of the Court below, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 28.06.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Chetan Jyani, the husband of the respondent no. 1, used to harass his father and that an F.I.R. bearing No. 27/2020 was registered against him at Police Station Sadar Bazaar, Jodhpur. and that after marriage the respondent no. 1 and her husband were residing at a residence separate than that the other family members, at an apartment situated at Narsingh Dadha, Jodhpur.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondent no. 1 along with her husband did not deposit the dues towards their electricity charges before the Electricity Department and therefore, their electricity connection was cut, in accordance with the law; being aggrieved by the same, with the object that the electricity connection be restored, they filed the aforesaid application under the Act of 2005 against Smt. Leela, the wife of the petitioner no. 1, and her father Raghunath Das, aged about 90 years.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforesaid submissions, placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shyamlal Devda & Ors. v. Parimala, (Criminal Appeal No. 141/2020, decided on 22.01.2020).

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the private respondents opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and submitted that the learned Courts below has rightly passed the orders dated, 28.06.2022 and 12.10.2022, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, and the evidences placed on the record before it. and that, the simple fact that the petitioners and respondents are close family members, Smt. Leela being the