Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
Krishnawati Devi – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.)
1. Heard Sri Om Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State, but no one appeared on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 despite service of notice.
2. The present 482 Cr.P.C. application has been filed to quash the entire proceeding/complaint in Case No. 59 of 2016 (Smrita Srivastava Vs. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava and others) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Domestic Violence Act'), pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.
3. Facts giving rise to the present controversy is that applicant no. 7 is the husband of opposite party no. 2 and matrimonial discord between them has culminated into this proceeding as well as other proceeding between them.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no. 1 is the mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 while applicant nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are married sisters of applicant no. 7 while applicant no. 6 is the husband of applicant no. 3. Applicant nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been residing separately with their family at different pl
Only individuals living in a shared household with the aggrieved person qualify as respondents under the Domestic Violence Act, as defined in Sections 2(q) and 2(f).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a shared household and domestic relationship for invoking the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Only those persons who have been in domestic relationship can be made as respondent under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The main legal point established is that for a proceeding under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 to be maintainable, the respondent must be in a domestic relatio....
Domestic violence proceedings under the DV Act require established shared household and direct domestic relationship; mere familial ties are insufficient for liability.
A domestic relationship under the D.V. Act requires actual or past residence in a shared household, and mere visits do not suffice to establish such a relationship.
The court ruled that a domestic relationship ends upon establishing separate households, disallowing a domestic violence claim under the Act.
A friend of the husband of the aggrieved person is not a "respondent" within the meaning of the D.V. Act and is not subject to the provisions of the Act.
Distant relatives residing in a separate district may not be necessary parties in a domestic violence proceeding under the PWDV Act, and their presence may not be required for adjudication.
Specific allegations of domestic violence are required against each individual for proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act to be valid; vague or general claims are insufficient to sustain such ac....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
