The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a subsisting domestic relationship between the respondent and the complainant for the court to pass an order under the DV Act.

JUDGMENT :

Instant petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding arising out of Complaint Case No.10418 of 2021 under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short DV Act). Opposite party No.2-Sumana Sharan filed complaint before A.C.J.M., Ranchi under Domestic Violence Act.

2. Petitioner no.1 and 2 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the Complainant.

CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT

3. The brief facts of the Complainant’s case is that she was married to Kanhaya Lal Gupta (Respondent No-1) on 22.05.2013 at Naini, Allahabad and was taken to the matrimonial home situated at 158-Manas Vihar, Tiwaripur-2, Jajmau, Kanpur, UP and the marriage was formally registered after six days before the Registrar, Hindu Marriage Registration Office at Kanpur on 29.05.13.

4. From the wedlock, they have two children. The respondent No.1 is an Indian Citizen working in Dublin, U.S.A. and was working there under VISA-H1-B as software developer. The complainant was also living with her husband in U.S.A. on “Dependent spouse VISA”, and was subjected to domestic violence and subjected to cruelty in reference to dowry demand. It is alleged that he had developed extra marital relations with US national to get US Citizenship/Green Card with the aim of divorcing the Complainant. She was quite helpless in U.S.A and had to take refuge with some shelter home for 13 days and then somehow managed to return to her parent’s home in India from LSS Choice Shelter Home, Columbus, U.S.A. on 20th December, 2019.

5. After coming to India, she filed Ranchi Sadar P.S. Case No.09 of 2020 under Sections 498A, 323, 354B, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. During investigation Sections 376, 511 of the I.P.C has also been added. She also filed case for maintenance against her husband which is now pending before the Principal Judge Family Court Ranchi.

6. Case against domestic violence has been filed for the following reliefs:

i. Pass protection order under Section 18 of the DV Act

ii. Pass residence order under Section 19 of the DV Act

iii. Direct the respondent to pay monetary relief under Section 20 of DV Act.

iv. Pass order under Section 21 of the DV Act to grant compensation or damages under Section 22 of the DV Act.

PETITIONER’S CASE

7. The petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant and seek quashing of the entire proceeding inter alia on the ground that there is no allegation against the present petitioners that they had resorted to domestic violence. The entire allegation is directed against the husband which took place in USA. Not a part of the incidence of domestic violence did take place in India.

8. It is urged that sine qua non for initiating a proceeding under DV Act is that there should be some material to show that the respondents shared domestic relationship with the complainant. Soon after the marriage as per the complaint the petitioner joined her husband abroad were the alleged incidents of domestic violence took place. In the absence of the petitioner sharing any domestic relationship with the complainant, the initiation of proceeding against them is an abuse of process of court.

a. As a matter of fact, the complainant was living with her husband in U.S.A. and after the marital dispute, a decree for divorce was filed on the ground of cruelty by the son of petitioners which has been decreed by the Court of Franklin County, Ohio, U.S.A. on 01.11.2021. The appeal has also been dismissed. Copy of judgment and decree of divorce and the order of dismissal of appeal is annexed herewith. Lastly, it is submitted that the allegation of domestic violence has been refuted and denied in the finding recorded by the Court of Common Pleas, Franklin County, Ohio, Division of Domestic Relations.

9. It is submitted that after divorce on 01.11.2021, the husband of complainant is still living in U.S.A. with two minor children and the