Domestic violence proceedings under the DV Act require established shared household and direct domestic relationship; mere familial ties are insufficient for liability.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioners challenging the proceeding in CMC No.88 of 2022 initiated by an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’) and pending in the file of learned S.D.J.M. Bhubaneswar and issuance of notice to show cause on the grounds inter alia that no prima facie case is made out against them and it is liable to be quashed in exercise of the Courts’ inherent jurisdiction.

2. The petitioners are respondent Nos.4 to 7 in the proceeding before the court below having been registered at the behest of the opposite party-aggrieved person who alleged domestic violence against them and other in-laws. From the application under Section 12 of the DV Act, a copy of which is at Annexure-2, it is made to appear that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the parents-in-law of petitioner No.4 (respondent No.4, namely, sister-in-law of the opposite party), whereas, petitioner No.3 is the latter’s husband (respondent No.5). As according to the petitioners, with false and frivolous allegation made against them, the opposite party dragged all them into litigation out of personal grudge when they do not have any direct relation with her nor at any point in time, did ever shared household and hence, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any acts of domestic violence.

3. Heard Mr. B. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned counsel for the opposite party.

4. The opposite party filed a counter affidavit dated 19th July, 2022 denying the contention of the petitioners and alleging that they are the relations of her husband and therefore, cannot be said not to be in any domestic relationship and furthermore, they have been arrayed as accused in Bhubaneswar Mahila P.S. Case No.17 of 2022. The details of the facts alleged in Annexure-2 have been justified by the opposite party stating the facts regarding the physical, verbal and emotional abuse, she was subjected to in the hands of the petitioners besides the other respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if there is a shared household between the parties related by marriage ETC. described in Section 2 (f) of the DV Act and the aggrieved person so defined in (a) thereof alleged to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence, a proceeding under the DV Act with the necessary reliefs is maintainable. It is contended that the expression ‘shared household’ stands defined in (s) of the DV Act which means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household which belongs to a joint family and while sharing the household in such manner and being in a domestic relationship, for any kind of violence she is subjected to, the latter may demand maintenance with other reliefs including an order for residence. In the instant case, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the opposite party did not share common household with the petitioners at any given point of time and therefore, in absence of it, a proceeding under the DV Act cannot be entertained against them.

6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the opposite party has moved the learned court below against the petitioners and also her husband and parents- in-law on account of ill-treatment she was meted out, details of which, have been elaborately narrated in the application