Domestic violence complaints can be filed against both males and females under the DV Act, and there are no limitations on when these can be filed if ongoing abuse is present.

JUDGMENT : 

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioners have filed the present petition for quashing of the Case No. 02/2023 titled Shilpi Sharma versus Sandeep and others pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. IV, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. (learned Trial Court). (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they are arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that a Domestic Incident Report was filed before the learned Trial Court claiming various reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). It was asserted that the informant was being taunted on trivial matters. When it was found that the informant was sick, she was asked to conceal the illness. She was not permitted to serve at Hamirpur and was not allowed to go out of her matrimonial home. Obstructions were being created in meeting the informant’s relatives. Her name was not recorded in the Ration Card. She was asked to carry out the work after she had undergone an operation, even though her health did not allow her to carry out the work. The informant’s husband listened to his parents, and the informant’s parents-in-law interfered with her life. She was left in Hamirpur on 30.10.2007. She was not allowed to sit in the courtyard. Her stridhan, articles and health record were with the respondents, and she required the health record for further treatment. The informant had to carry out the private job, and no maintenance was provided to her. Her mobile number was also blocked by her husband. Hence, it was prayed that the action be taken against the respondents and various reliefs be provided to her.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to issue summons to the respondents.

4. Being aggrieved by the petition filed before the learned Trial Court, the respondents have filed the present petition for quashing the complaint and the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. It was asserted that petitioners No. 1 and 2 are parents of Sandeep Sharotri, the informant’s husband and petitioner No. 3 is the sister of Sandeep Sharotri. The marriage between the informant and her husband was solemnised on 19.11.2015. It was agreed between the parties that there would be no exchange of dowry. Sandeep Sharotri, his parents and the informant left for Gurugram, where he was serving. Petitioners No.1 and 2 returned after 15 days and settled the informant and her husband in their new home. The informant and her husband resided happily in Gurugram. The petitioner No.3 visited Gurugram in March 2016 for her studies at AIIMS. She informed Sandeep Sharotri that the informant was suffering from a severe backache and should be taken to the hospital. Various tests were conducted, and it was found that the informant had a tumour. The informant told her husband and his relatives not to disclose this fact to her parents. The informant was taken to PGI, Chandigarh, where she underwent an operation. The informant was taken to the hospital for follow-up treatment. The informant started behaving strangely after her surgery. She withdrew herself from the household chores, social obligations and marital duties. She started saying bad things about her husband and his family members. She left the home suddenly after arguments with her husband. Sandeep Sharotri suggested that he would drop her off at her parents' home, and he dropped the informant off at her parents’ home. Efforts were made to take her to a matrimonial home, but the informant stated that she was serving in a school and would leave for Gurugram only if she got a job. The informant had herself withdrawn from the society of her husband. A divorce petition is pending before the learned District Judge, Kangra. The present proceedings were initiated as a counterblast to the proceedings for divorce. The informant has not been residing in her matrimonial home since 2017, and the comp