Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(UK) 130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
ASHISH NAITHANI, J.
Prasanna Badini And Others - Revisionists
Versus
State of Uttarakhand And Others - Respondents
Criminal Revision No. 484 of 2025
Decided On : 06-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Revisionist : Sri Piyush Tiwari, learned counsel
For the Respondent:Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General assisted by Mr. Vikash Uniyal, learned Brief Holder, Sri Yogesh Upadhyay, learned counsel

DV Act proceedings quashed absent subsisting domestic relationship after prolonged separation and spousal death, with inordinate delay, vague allegations, and ulterior property/pension motives constituting abuse of process.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f) and 12 - Domestic relationship must exist or have arisen from shared household for proceedings under Act - Widow resided separately since 2010, husband's death in 2019 severed ties, no subsisting relationship - Application filed after inordinate unexplained delay, no contemporaneous complaint - Allegations general, lacking specific incidents, dates, acts of violence - Reliefs target property and pension of aged relatives - No prima facie satisfaction for summons, mechanical issuance impermissible - Absence of domestic incident report, vague pleadings relevant - Continuation abuse of process, proceedings quashed. (Paras 15-22)

(B) Revisional jurisdiction under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 438/442 - Limited to legality, correctness, propriety of orders - Intervention where foundational requirements absent or proceedings abuse process. (Para 14)

(C) Beneficial legislation - Delay not fatal alone but significant with vague allegations, no continuing violence - Act not for adjudicating inheritance, pension disputes - Criminal process impermissible for collateral civil purposes. (Paras 16, 18)

Facts of the case:
Widow instituted proceedings under Section 12 against aged parents-in-law and sister-in-law post-husband's death, alleging past cruelty despite separate residence since 2010. Magistrate issued summons, appellate court affirmed, revision challenged as abuse of process absent subsisting domestic relationship, delay, vague claims aimed at property, pension; adoption of child unproven.

Findings of Court:
Summoning order and appellate judgment set aside, proceedings quashed against senior citizens.

Issues: Existence of subsisting domestic relationship post-separation and spousal death; effect of inordinate delay and vague allegations; proceedings as tool for property claims; adequacy of appellate scrutiny.

Ratio Decidendi: No subsisting domestic relationship or prima facie domestic violence disclosed; delay, general pleadings, property motives indicate abuse of process justifying threshold intervention to prevent harassment of aged relatives.

Result: Criminal revision allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual procedural history of delayed dv claim post-separation (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. no subsisting domestic relationship after separation, death (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. past shared household suffices; delay not fatal (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
4. revisional intervention if no relationship or abuse evident (Para 15 , 16)
5. vague claims, property misuse, lack proofs warrant scrutiny (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. proceedings quashed as process abuse against seniors (Para 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

This criminal revision has been preferred by the Revisionists under Sections 438/442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, assailing the judgment and order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, District UdhamSingh Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2024, whereby the appeal filed by the present Revisionists against the summoning order dated 05.06.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 260 of 2024 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, came to be dismissed. By the impugned orders, the learned courts below have upheld the issuance of notice against the Revisionists, who are the aged parents-in-law and sister-in-law of Respondent No. 2. Aggrieved by the continuation of the proceedings, the Revisionists have approached this Court invoking its revisional jurisdiction.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that Respondent No. 2 was married to the son of Revisionist Nos. 1 and 2. From the said wedlock, no biological child was born and, as claimed by Respondent No. 2, a girl child, Respondent No. 3, was adopted in the year 2018. The husband of Respondent No. 2 expired in the year 2019. It is the case of the Revisionists that Respondent No. 2 had been residing separately from the Revisionists since the year 2010 and, after the death of her husband, permanently severed her ties with the shared household.

3. After a considerable lapse of time, Respondent No. 2 instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, seeking reliefs against the present Revisionists. Upon presentation of the said application, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 05.06.2024, issued summons to the Revisionists.

4. Challenging the said summoning order, the Revisionists preferred Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 2024 before the Court of Sessions under Section 29 of the Act. The learned Appellate Court, by judgment dated 04.07.2025, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the summoning order, holding that no illegality or infirmity was found in the order passed by the learned Magistrate.

5. It is against the aforesaid appellate judgment and the consequential continuation of proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act that the present criminal revision has been filed, primarily contending that the proceedings are an abuse of process of law, instituted after inordinate delay, in the absence of a subsisting domestic relationship, and with an oblique motive to assert claims over property and pension of the aged Revisionists.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the Revisionists submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court suffers from non-application of mind and has failed to consider the basic requirement of a subsisting domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It was contended that Respondent No. 2 had been residing separately from the Revisionists since the year 2010 and that, after the death of her husband in 2019, no shared household or domestic relationship survived so as to invoke proceedings under Section 12 of the Act.

8. It was further submitted that the complaint has been filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay, as no allegation of domestic violence was ever ra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document