Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11572 A.F.R.

Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14626 of 2019 Applicant :- Krishnawati Devi And 06 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble 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 places which is clear from their addresses. Therefore, they are not in a domestic relationship with opposite party no. 2. Therefore, applicant nos. 2 to 6 will not come within the definition of respondents as per Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act and they have been falsely implicated in the impugned proceeding. Therefore, the impugned proceeding is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. It is further submitted that this Court has rejected the present application at the instance of applicant no. 7 vide order dated 16.04.2019 but the proceeding against applicant no. 1, mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2, is also erroneous. It is lastly submitted that the impugned proceeding is absolutely malicious and liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has submitted that applicant no. 1, mother-in-law of opposite party no. 2 has been in a domestic relationship with opposite party no. 2 at the relevant time. Therefore, applicant no. 1 would come within the definition of the respondent as per Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act.

6. After hearing the submissions of parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the marriage of the applicant no. 7 and opposite party no. 2 has been solemnized in the year 02.06.2011. Subsequently, on the rising of matrimonial discord between them, they have filed cases against each other, including the impugned proceeding. 7. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the applicant nos. 2 to 6 are relatives of applicant no. 7 and they have been residing separately. Therefore, as per Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, they cannot be termed as respondents as they have not been residing in a shared household with the opposite party no. 2.

8. Section 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act is being quoted as under:- (q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act;

9. The proceeding under Domestic Violence Act can be initiated when the domestic violence as mentioned in Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act is committed by the respondent who is living in domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. The word “domestic relationship” has been defined in Section

2(f) of Domestic Violence Act which is being reproduced as follows : (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