IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Suvir Sehgal, J.
Santosh Mittal - Appellant
Versus
Sonia Singla & Ors. - Respondents
CRM-M-4161-2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-01-2021
Domestic Violence Act - Shared Household - The court held that the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was maintainable against the petitioner, the mother-in-law, as the complainant and the petitioner were found to have lived together in a shared household at different points of time, and the Act does not require the parties to be actually residing together at the time of filing the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, alleging that as she was not residing with the complainant, the complaint was not maintainable against her.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint against the petitioner was maintainable as the complainant and the petitioner were found to have lived together in a shared household at different points of time, and the Act does not require the parties to be actually residing together at the time of filing the petition.
Issues: The issue was whether the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was maintainable against the petitioner, the mother-in-law, who was not residing with the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of the Act and held that the complaint was maintainable as the Act does not require the parties to be actually residing together at the time of filing the petition, and the definition of 'domestic relationship' includes living together at any point of time in the past.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the complaint was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT
Suvir Sehgal, J. (Oral). - The Court has been convened through video conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.
2. Through the instant petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint bearing No. COMA/45/2020 dated 17.08.2020 titled as Sonia Singla and another Versus Pankaj Mittal and another, Annexure P-l, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "the Act") which is pending before JMIC, Derabassi, District Mohali.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the complainant-respondent No.1, is not residing with the complainant, therefore, the complaint under the provisions of the Act is not maintainable against her.
4. The argument raised by the counsel deserves to be noticed and rejected. A perusal of paras 7 to 9 of the impugned complaint-Annexure P-1 shows that after her marriage, the complainant started residing at the native place of her in-laws at Kumkshetra and the petitioner started harassing her for not bringing adequate dowry. It has been alleged that on the very first day after marriage, the petitioner taunted her for bringing five sarees less in dowry. The taunts became a daily affair. Still further, it has been alleged that the complainant was forced to travel from Kumkshetra to her workplace at Government High School, Sector 24, Chandigarh and later to Panchkula, where she was transferred. It has been further pleaded that the complainant and the petitioner stayed together at Kumkshetra and then at Gurgaon during her first and second pregnancy, when she was maltreated, harassed, forced to do household chores and given insufficient diet by the petitioner despite her being pregnant. The complainant was compelled to give her salary to the petitioner. From the complaint, it is clear that the complainant and the petitioner have been residing together at different places.
5. The expressions "aggrieved person", "domestic relationship" and "shared household" has been defined in Sector 2 of the Act as under:
"a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
b) to e) xxx xxx xxx
f) "domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family"
g) to q) xxx xxx xxx
s) "shared household" 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 whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondents is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household;"
7. An examination of the provisions makes its clear that domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person, if the aggrieved person has lived with the respondent in a shared household. The living together can be either at the time of the filing of the petition or at any time in the past, when an act of domestic violence is alleged to have been committed. Therefore, none of the definitions contemplate that on the date of filing of application for the reliefs under the Act, the parties should be actually residing or living together. The words "live or have at any point of time lived together" necessarily cover even the past co-habitation o
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.