For domestic violence proceedings, courts must find specific allegations against individuals; general claims are insufficient to hold parties accountable.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The Petitioner is one of the Respondents in C.M.C. No.155/2023 of the Court of learned J.M.F.C. (O), Bhubaneswar filed by the present Opposite Party No.2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Do0mestic Violence Act, 2005 (“PWDV Act”). In the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the Petitioner prays for quashment of the said proceedings on the ground that no case is made out against her.

2. The facts, relevant only to decide the present application are that the aforementioned application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act was filed by the present Opposite Party No.2 as aggrieved person claiming reliefs under Sections 18 ,19,20 and 22 of the Act against the Petitioner and others. It is stated that the aggrieved person married Debadutta Behera on 8^th February, 2013 as per Hindu customs and rituals and such marriage was duly consummated. No dowry was demanded by the husband and other in-laws. After such marriage however, the respondents demanded gold ornaments and other valuable articles worth Rs.10 lakhs which was fulfilled by the father of the aggrieved person. In spite of such fulfillment of the demand of dowry, the in-laws of the aggrieved person subjected her to verbal abuse on multiple grounds. It is also alleged that the husband of the aggrieved person was a drunkard and misbehaved with her time and again. Though such fact was brought to the knowledge of her in-laws, they did not do anything about it. Further, she was not even allowed to take her meal twice a day and was always forced to cook separately for herself. Subsequently, the aggrieved person became pregnant, but her pregnancy was aborted by her husband who administered certain medicines to her. Her health condition deteriorated because of such fact and continued so for a long time. She was admitted to a Clinic at Jajpur Town but neither Respondent No.1 (husband) nor his in-laws visited her at any point of time. Her husband consumed alcohol and demanded car and other property from her and also physically assaulted her. Further, the husband and in-laws have been threatening her and her family members over phone using different phone numbers. On such facts, more or less, the application under of PWDV Act was filed. As required, a Domestic Incident Report was also submitted by the Protection Officer, Khordha. Considering the averments in the application under of the PWDV Act and the Domestic Incident Report, the Court below issued summons to all the Respondents including the present Petitioner.

3. Heard Mr. S.K.Baral, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. D. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved person (Opposite Party No.2).

4. Referring to the averments made in the application under Section 12 of the PWDV Act, Mr. Baral would argue that there is not a single specific allegation levelled against the present Petitioner, who happens to be the married sister-in-law of the aggrieved person who resides with her husband and family at Balasore. As such she never resided in any domestic relationship as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act nor lived in the said household within the meaning of (s) of the Act. Mr. Baral would therefore, argue that bereft of any specific allegation, the proceeding against the present Petitioner, if allowed to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

5. Mr. S.K.Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the Court below has taken note of the averments which are supported by Domestic Incident Report and therefore,