Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
Rabindra Kumar Mishra & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Odisha & Anr. - Respondents
CRLMC No. 2334 of 2021
Decided On : 17-03-2023
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - PROCEEDINGS UNDER PWDV ACT - Sections 2(f), 2(q), 2(s) - The court analyzed the definitions of 'domestic relationship' and 'shared household' under the PWDV Act, concluding that the petitioners did not have a domestic relationship with the complainant. The court emphasized that mere residence in the same household does not establish a shared household without a domestic relationship. The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Shyamlal Devda, which supports quashing proceedings against individuals without specific allegations of domestic violence. This legal framework led to the decision to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the initiation of domestic violence proceedings against them, asserting they were not in a domestic relationship with the complainant, who alleged cruelty and illicit relationships involving her husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not related to the complainant by consanguinity, marriage, or any relationship in the nature of marriage. The allegations against them were insufficient to establish a domestic relationship as defined by the PWDV Act.
Issues: Whether the petitioners can be considered respondents under the PWDV Act given the lack of a domestic relationship with the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that without a domestic relationship, the petitioners could not be respondents in the domestic violence proceedings. The definitions of 'domestic relationship' and 'shared household' were critical in determining the maintainability of the case against them.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings in DV Case No. 191 of 2021 against the petitioners.
JUDGEMENT
Sashikanta Mishra, J.
The petitioners challenge the initiation of the proceeding under Section-12 read with Sections 19 and 20 of PWDV Act against them on the ground that they are not related to the complainant in any domestic relationship.
2. The facts of the case are that the present opposite party No. 2 has filed the case registered as DV Case No.191 of 2021 in the court of learned S.D.J.M. (S). Cuttack with the following prayer:-
'The petitioners therefore, prays that your Lordship's may graciously be pleased to allow the application and also may kindly be pleased to grant stay of further proceeding or pass any appropriate order in relating to D.V. Case No. 191 of 2021 pending before the court of learned S.D.J.M. (Sadar), Cuttack for the greater interest of justice.'
3. In the said petition it is stated that she had married one Sudhir Kumar Kara (opposite party No.1 in the complaint petition) way back in the year 1996 and that she is blessed with a son and daughter out of such marriage. It is alleged that opposite party Nos.3, 4, 6 and 7 (in the complaint petition) being her in-laws, subjected her to cruelty since her marriage was apparently solemnized against their wishes. The complainant has made several allegations citing instances of torture, both physical and metal. In so far as the present petitioners are concerned, it has been alleged that her husband has an illicit relationship with the present petitioner No.2 who is married to petitioner No.1. The following allegation has been made under paragraph-13 and 14.
'13. That after going through the facts it is crystal clear that the petitioner no.2 along with petitioner no.1 were staying in a shared house for which the life of the opp. Party no.2 has been spoiled and destroyed and she has been tortured mentally and physically accordingly she prays for dismissed of the present petition.'
14. That it is humbly submitted that the conduct and behavior of the petitioner no.2 is encouraged by the petitioner no.1 as becoming a silent observer who has never raised any objection or restricted the petitioner no.2 from doing any illegal Act so as to save the life of the opp. party no.2.'
In so far as the petitioner No.1 is concerned, the following has been alleged under paragraph -17:
'17. That its further humbly submitted that the opp. party no.2 due to want of money to unable to maintain herself and her son to prosecute his study as such is passing sorrowful days for which necessary direction be issued to the learned court before to conclude the proceeding within a stipulated time.'
4. Asserting that no case of domestic violence is made out against them, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings.
5. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Dwibedi on behalf of Mr. P.R. Singh for the petitioners and Mr. N.B. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.
6. Mr. Dwibedi submits that by no stretch of imagination the petitioners can be said to have been in any kind of domestic relationship with the complainant (present opposite party No.2) so as to be entangled in the DV preceding. Referring to the definition of domestic relationship as per Section 2(f) of the Act, Sri Dwibedi submits that the petitioners are not related to the opposite party No.2 in any manner whatsoever. Moreover, nothing has been claimed against them. Mr. Dwibedi also refers to the definition of 'Respondent' as per Section 2(q) of the Act to submit that the petitioners cannot be made respondents in the case.
7. Mr. N.B. Das, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has argued that the husband of opposite party No.2 had illicit relationship with petitioner No.2 and both of them stayed together in a building in which she was also residing. Therefore, it become a shared household.
8. In order to appreciate the contentions urged, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the PWDV Act. Section 2 (q) reads as under:-
'(q) 'respondent' means any adult male person who is, or has bee
A person cannot be made a respondent in domestic violence proceedings unless there is a domestic relationship as defined by the PWDV Act.
Only individuals living in a shared household with the aggrieved person qualify as respondents under the Domestic Violence Act, as defined in Sections 2(q) and 2(f).
Distant relatives residing in a separate district may not be necessary parties in a domestic violence proceeding under the PWDV Act, and their presence may not be required for adjudication.
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....
The main legal point established is that the definition of 'domestic relationship' under the DV Act requires a shared household, and a mere social visit does not fulfill this requirement.
The court ruled that a domestic relationship ends upon establishing separate households, disallowing a domestic violence claim under the Act.
Lack of domestic relationship precludes application of domestic violence laws.
Prima facie allegations of domestic violence under the PWDV Act do not require detailed particulars of every single act of cruelty, and the veracity of the allegations would depend upon the evidence ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
