Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.
Sushila Devi Mittal – Petitioner
versus
Shikha Garg – Respondent
Crl.M.C. 1000 of 2018 and
Crl.M.A. 3634 of 2018 (Stay)
Decided on 14.5.2025
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Domestic violence – Essentially on allegations of harassment, dowry demands etc., respondents were summoned – Allegations are general in nature and non-specific, which reflects endeavour by Complainant to somehow rope in all family members – Allegations were essentially against husband and mother-in-law, who are both dead – Prima facie no acts of domestic violence are made out against Petitioner – Impugned summoning order set aside. (Paras 23 and 24)
Result: Quashing Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT
Neena Bansal Krishna, J.—Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), has been filed on behalf of the Petitioners seeking quashing of Domestic Violence Complaint Case No. 4219/2017 dated 30.11.2017, filed by the Respondent-Complainant-Smt. Shikha Garg, under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “DV Act”) and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Briefly stated, Respondent-Complainant-Smt. Shikha Garg, married to Sh. Ajit Mittal, son of Petitioner No. 1-Smt Sushila Devi and brother of Petitioner No.2-Sh. Amit Mittal on 26.02.2002 at New Delhi. After her marriage, the Respondent/Complainant-Smt. Shikha Garg resided with her Husband-Sh. Ajit Mittal and his family members at Property bearing No.1, Sri Nagar Extension, Ashok Vihar, Phase-3, Delhi.
3. From this wedlock, a daughter was born on 12.5.2003 and a son was born on 6.5.2007.
4. Soon after their wedding, differences started to occur between Respondent-Complainant-Smt. Shikha Garg and her Husband-Ajit Mittal and his family members. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that due to such differences, on 28.12.2004, the parents of the Husband-Sh. Ajit Mittal issued a Public Notice in the daily newspaper “The Statesman,” declaring that they had terminated all relations with their son-Sh. Ajit Mittal and Respondent/Complainant-Smt. Shikha Garg.
5. On 10.09.2017, a Police Complaint was filed by the Respondent-Complainant-Smt. Shikha Garg at Police Station Mandawali, Delhi, on which FIR No. 412/2017 under Sections 342/323/506 IPC against her Husband-Sh. Ajit Mittal was registered in which he was subsequently arrested. Later, Sections 354B and Section 377 IPC were also added in the said FIR. He was released on bail on 11.10.2017.
6. Thereafter, on 30.11.2017, the Respondent-Complainant-Smt. Shikha Garg filed the Impugned Complaint under Section 12 of DV Act, 2005 wherein she has prayed for prohibition and injunction against the Petitioners from repeating any act of domestic violence and prohibiting them from entering into the place of her residence; prohibiting Petitioners from alienating her from Properties bearing No. B-3/53, Rajasthali Apartment, Pitampura; Flat Bearing no. B-4/54 Rajasthali Apartment, Pitampura; Flat bearing No.604F Jhule Lal Apartment, Pitampura and Flat bearing No. BD-57 Vishakha Enclave, Pitampura and also sought a direction to the Petitioners to pay rent of Rs.61,000/- in respect of accommodation Flat 601, Tower 31, CWG Village, Delhi-92, where she is presently residing with her children.
7. Vide Order dated 18.12.2017, the Husband-Sh. Ajit Mittal, Smt. Sushila Devi (Mother-in-law/Petitioner No.1) and Sh. Amit Mittal (Brother-in-law/Petitioner No.2) were summoned; however, Smt. Archna Mittal (married elder sister in law) was not summoned.
8. Sh. Ajit Mittal, Husband of the Respondent Complainant died on 28.12.2017. The Petitioner No.1- Smt. Sushila Mittal also passed away on 13.10.2024.
9. The present Petition now survives only qua Petitioner No.2-Sh. Amit Mittal, brother-in-law of the Respondent-Complainant-Smt. Shikha Garg.
10. It is submitted on behalf of Petitioner No.2-Shri Amit Mittal that there are no specific allegations against him and only general allegations have been levelled in Complaint dated 30.11.2017. He has further submitted that he has never interacted or communicated with the Complainant since 2003, as she has been living separately with her Husband Sh. Ajit Mittal.
11. The Respondent-Complainant-Smt. Shikha Garg in her Reply has asserted that serious and specific allegations have been made against the Petitioners in the Complaint dated 30.11.2017 and the averments made by Petitioner No.2-Sh.Amit Mittal are false and misleading.
12. The Respondent-Complainant-Smt. Shikha Garg has asserted that all parties resided in Ashok Vihar, Phase 3, Delhi, where she was subj
Domestic violence – Criminal case cannot proceed where allegations are general in nature and non-specific.
The existence of a familial relationship is sufficient to sustain domestic violence proceedings under the Act, regardless of the respondent's residence status.
Failure to provide natural justice in the issuance of summons limits the fairness of legal proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Lack of domestic relationship precludes application of domestic violence laws.
Limitations under Section 468 of the CrPC do not apply until there is a breach of an order issued under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The court holds that a relationship in the nature of marriage qualifies as a domestic relationship under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, allowing the petitioner's complaint to pro....
Domestic violence proceedings under the DV Act require established shared household and direct domestic relationship; mere familial ties are insufficient for liability.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a subsisting domestic relationship between the respondent and the complainant for the court to pass an order under the DV Act....
The court emphasized the need for a cautious approach in cases of misuse of the Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and highlighted the requirement for the allegations to constit....
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
