Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(J&K) 713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
RAJNESH OSWAL, J.
Swaran Lata & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Renu Kumari – Respondents
CRMC No. 546 of 2018
Decided on : 24-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jasbir Singh Jasrotia
For the Respondent: Mazher Ali Khan

IMPORTANT POINT
Specific allegations of domestic violence are required against each individual for proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act to be valid; vague or general claims are insufficient to sustain such actions.

Headnote:
QUASHING - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners under the Domestic Violence Act, 2010, emphasizing that the allegations made were primarily against the respondent's husband, with only general and vague references to the petitioners, thus lacking the necessary specificity to sustain the claims against them. The court highlighted the importance of a clear domestic relationship and specific allegations in domestic violence cases, referencing a precedent that supports the dismissal of cases lacking such clarity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are the in-laws of the respondent, sought to quash the proceedings initiated by the respondent under the Domestic Violence Act, claiming that the allegations were primarily against her husband and that there was no domestic relationship with the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations against the petitioners were vague and lacked specificity, primarily targeting the respondent's husband. It noted that the petitioners had not been directly involved in any alleged domestic violence, leading to the conclusion that continuing the proceedings against them would constitute an abuse of law.
Issues: Whether the allegations made by the respondent against the petitioners under the Domestic Violence Act were sufficient to sustain the proceedings, given the lack of specific claims against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that for proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act to continue against individuals, there must be specific allegations of domestic violence directed at them, rather than general claims or references. The absence of such specificity warranted the quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners.
Final Decision: The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioners but clarified that this decision would not affect the respondent's rights to seek maintenance, return of her articles, or residence orders against her husband.

JUDGMENT :

RAJNESH OSWAL, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under section 561-A Cr.P.C. (now 482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing the proceedings of the application titled 'Renu Kumari vs. Vikram Vikas and Ors.' filed by the respondent under section 12 along with application filed under section 23 of Domestic Violence Act, 2010 pending before the court of learned Munsiff (JMIC), R.S. Pura (hereinafter to be referred as trial court).

2. It is stated that the petitioner No. 1 is the mother-in-law, the petitioner No. 3 is the brother-in-law and the petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are the sisters-in-law of the respondent respectively. The respondent has preferred an application under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2010 before the trial court. In the said application, the respondent had sought the protection order, maintenance order, residence order and also return of her articles. It is further stated that the petitioners are in-laws of the respondent and they have preferred the present petition for quashing the proceedings before the trial court on the following grounds:-

(i) That the petitioner No. 1 has disinherited her son, who happens to be the husband of the respondent.

(ii) That the petitioner No. 3 has been residing in West Bengal all along the period during which the respondent was residing with her husband.

(iii) That there is no domestic relationship between the parties.

3. Response has not been filed.

4. Mr. Jasbir Singh Jasrotia, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that no allegation has been leveled against the petitioners and cause of action if any available to the respondent is only qua her husband.

5. Mr. Mazher Ali Khan, Advocate submits that specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioners in the application.

6. Heard and perused the record.

7. The contention of the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 had disinherited her son ten months prior to the solemnization of the marriage between her son and the respondent is a disputed question of fact and on this account, no indulgence can be shown by this Court. However, perusal of the application preferred by the respondent reveals that all the allegations have been leveled by the respondent are against her husband only and only general allegations have been leveled against the petitioners without there being any specific details only passing reference has been made with regard to the petitioners in Para 2 of the application.

8. In case titled, 'Shyamlal Devda and others vs. Parimala, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 14, the Supreme Court while settling aside the proceedings, has observed as under:-

"9. In the present case, the respondent has made allegations of domestic violence against fourteen appellants. Appellant 14 is the husband and Appellants 1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of the respondent. All other appellants are relatives of parents-in-law of the respondent. Appellants 3, 5, 9, 11 and 12 are the brothers of father-in-law of the respondent. Appellants 4, 6 and 10 are the wives of Appellants 3, 5 and 9 respectively. Appellants 7 and 8 are the parents of Appellant 1. Appellants 1 to 6 and 14 are residents of Chennai. Appellants 7 to 10 are the residents of the State of Rajasthan and Appellants 11 to 13 are the residents of the State of Gujarat. Admittedly, the matrimonial house of the respondent and Appellant 1 has been at Chennai. Insofar as Appellant 14 husband of the respondent and Appellants 1 and 2 parents-in-law, there are averments of alleged domestic violence alleging that they have taken away the jewellery of the respondent gifted to her by her father during marriage and the alleged acts of harassment to the respondent. There are no specific allegations as to how other relatives of Appellant 14 have caused the acts of domestic violence. It is also not known as to how other relatives who are residents of Gujarat and Rajasthan can be held responsible for award of monetary relief to the respondent. The High Court was not righ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document