The court clarified the interpretation of 'shared household' and 'domestic relationship' under the DV Act and established the maintainability of complaints based on these definitions.

JAISHREE THAKUR, J.

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to quash the Complaint No. DV/0000004/2014 dated 27.03.2014 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurugram along with the impugned orders dated 02.06.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram as well as orders dated 27.03.2014, 01.12.2014 and 30.08.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon.

2. In brief, the facts as stated in the complaint are, that complainant (hereinafter called respondent) solemnized her marriage with Vineet Beniwal petitioner No. 3, and son of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 14.02.2004. Soon after the marriage, the respondent and petitioner No. 3 left for the United States of America, as he was employed in Houston, Texas. At the time of marriage a sum of Rs 5 lakhs in cash was given, which amount was got converted in US dollars by him and thereafter utilized towards purchase of a joint house in Houston. While at Houston she became aware that her husband was an alcoholic and suffering from psychological disorder. It is alleged that the respondent was subjected to physical assault and economic deprivation as well, since all her earnings were utilized by her husband petitioner no 3. While in USA the respondent gave birth to a daughter namely Rianna on 28.10.2009. In December 2012, the respondent along with petitioner No. 3 and their daughter came to India. On the insistence of the respondent, petitioner No. 3 consulted a psychiatrist at Fortis Hospital Gurgaon, who came to the conclusion that petitioner No. 3 was probably suffering from ‘bipolar disorder’. Petitioner No. 3 refused any treatment and left back for United States of America, leaving the respondent and their daughter behind. The respondent thereafter resided with her parents in Gurugram. Petitioner No. 2, the father of Vineet Beniwal, left for USA in August 2013 and on returning informed the respondent that petitioner No. 3 had decided to shift back to India permanently and would reside along with the respondent and the minor daughter in India. Petitioner No. 3 asked for a power of attorney to be sent so that properties could be disposed of. The respondent duly sent the power of attorney and the joint properties of the respondent and petitioner No. 1 were sold for approximately $ 200,000/- amounting to Rs. one crore. Petitioner No. 3 came back to India and thereafter respondent, he along with minor daughter jointly resided at Flat No. 701, Tower 3 Uniworld Garden Sohna, Road Gurgaon. It is only thereafter that the respondent realized that there was no change in the behavior of her husband petitioner No. 3 and that he had fraudulently got her to send a power of attorney to sell the joint properties as he had misappropriated the entire sale proceeds. It is also alleged that in the month of March 2014, the petitioners No 1 and 3 started to pressurize the respondent to give a divorce. Thereafter, the respondent filed a Domestic Violence case seeking relief under Section 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act 2005 (DV Act 2005 for short). The petitioners no 1 and 2 appeared, whereas no one put in an appearance for petitioner no 3, the husband Vineet Beniwal. By an order dated 1.12.2014 the Civil Judge restrained the petitioners from forcibly dispossessing the respondent from premises described as flat No. 701, Tower 3 Uniworld Garden Sohna, Road Gurgaon.

3. Aggrieved against the said order an appeal was filed under Section 29 of the DV Act of 2005 which was dismissed on 2.6.2015. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioners preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous M- 24095 of 2015 Renu Beniwal and another versus Sarika Nehra Beniwal. During the pendency of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition in the High Court, the marital dispute was compromised between the parties at the Dis