Hon’ble Ajai Lamba, J.—This order shall dispose of three cases i.e. Case : Under Section 482/378/407 No. 3190 of 2014 titled ‘Arun Sharma v. The State of U.P. and others’, Case : Under Section 482/378/407 No. 2002 of 2014 titled ‘Smt. Sangeeta Sharma v. State of U.P. and another’ and Case : Under Section 482/378/407 No. 2332 of 2014 titled ‘Smt. Ushma Sharda v. The State of U.P. and another’.

2. All the petitions seek common relief i.e. quashing of proceedings in complaint No. 267 of 2014 (Geeta Mehta v. Arun Sharma and others) dated 5.02.2014 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘Domestic Violence Act’) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow. The petition also seeks quashing of order dated 5.02.2014 (Annexure-2) vide which notice has been issued taking cognizance of the complaint made by the respondent.

3. For reference to record, Case : Under Section 482/378/407 No. 3190 of 2014 titled ‘Arun Sharma v. The State of U.P. and others’ is being taken up.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the complaint at the instance of respondent-complainant against the petitioners is not maintainable for the reason that the said respondent cannot be said to be an aggrieved person in context of the petitioners. The respondent was married more than 30 years back. The marriage is still subsisting and, therefore, cannot be said to be in “domestic relationship” in “shared household”. It has been contended that the petitioners are respondents in the complaint. Respondent can only be an adult male person. In such circumstances, complaint against Sangeeta Sharma and Ushma Sharda is per se not maintainable. It has also been argued that it is in total abuse of process of the Court and process of law that the complaint has been instituted for greed of money and property which is evident from the facts of the case, on bare perusal of the complaint. Even if all the allegations in the complaint are accepted to be true and correct, yet the complaint is neither maintainable nor cognizance of the same could have been taken by the Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has argued that promise for a flat at issue and other moveable property was made which has not been honoured. The respondent-complainant is member of the family of the petitioners and had been living in “domestic relationship” with the petitioners in “shared household” and, therefore, is an aggrieved person. The respondent-complainant has had strained relationship with her husband, therefore, has right to initiate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act to claim residential property from her brother, sister and sister-in-law i.e. the petitioners.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record.

7. The relationship of the petitioners and respondents is that father of respondent-complainant-Geeta Mehta, petitioners-Ushma Sharda and Arun Sharma is Shri Inder Jit Sharma. Petitioner-Sangeeta Sharma is the wife of Arun Sharma.

8. The present is a very unfortunate dispute wherein Geeta Metha (hereafter referred to as the respondent/complainant) wife of Rajeev Kumar Mehta resident of E-3/253, Sector-H, LDA Colony, Kanpur Road, Police Station Aashiana, District Lucknow has instituted impugned proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against her own brother namely Arun Sharma who is residing in Block D-7/2, Shubham Apartment, Dilshad Colony, Delhi-95, wife of Arun Sharma namely Sangeeta Sharma; And Ushma Sharda, sister of Geeta Mehta who is residing in her own matrimonial home i.e. in 7097-Sector-B, Pocket-10, Vasant Kunj, Delhi.

9. (a) Respondent/Complainant filed the impugned complaint with the allegations that her father Inder Jit Sharma and his wife Rajrani Sharma had executed a Will in regard to their movable and immovable property. It has been alleged that Rajrani Sharma, the mother, had bequeathed her moveable an