The potential for misuse of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the need for careful scrutiny of allegations in domestic violence cases.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to strike off the petitioners'' names relating to the complaint in D.V.O.P.No.17 of 2022, on the file of the Additional Mahila Court (Magistrate Level), Ramanathapuram, quash the same and consequently, allow the Civil Revision Petition in respect of the petitioners herein.)

The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law, and three sister-in-laws of the second respondent herein.

2. Despite service of notice on the respondents in this Civil Revision Petition and their names being printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

3. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to strike off the names of the petitioners in D.V.O.P.No.17 of 2022, pending on the file of the Additional Mahila Court [Magistrate Level], Ramanathapuram, under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

4. The petitioners are the residents of Ramanathapuram. The respondents are the husband and wife. D.V.O.P.No.17 of 2022 has been filed by the second respondent against the first respondent and the petitioners herein. The petitioners herein are the in-laws of the second respondent and father, mother and sisters of the first respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that soon after the marriage, the second respondent was transferred to Mumbai and was working there and she chose not to live in Tamil Nadu. He further submits that the petitioners and the respondents are not living together in a shared household. Therefore, the ingredients of domestic violence are wholly absent in this case and vague allegations are made in the complaint by the second respondent against the petitioners. He also submits that the complaint does not disclose any specific instance of domestic violence against the petitioners. In the absence of any concrete proof relating to domestic violence, the complaint is in fact designed only to harass the petitioners. If the complaint is allowed to be proceeded, it would obviously result in abuse of process of law.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

7. The specific allegations of the second respondent against the petitioners in the above D.V.O.P. are as follows:-

8. The first respondent has also filed H.M.O.P.No.81 of 2022 for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Sub Court, Muthukulathur and the same is pending for further adjudication.

9. Dealing with an identical situation, this Court in Santineer Vincent Rajkumar and another vs. R.Rejitha reported in 2017 (5) CTC 515, has quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioners therein in S.T.C.No.10791 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur, after following the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2010 (7) SCC 667, wherein at Paragraph 35, it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, as under:-

''''35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband''s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.''''

10. The facts of the aforesaid case a