Domestic relationship under the D.V. Act requires substantial and continuous residence, which the applicant did not establish regarding her in-laws.

1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

2. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 15.02.2022, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akol, whereby the learned Judge allowed the appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 33/2021 filed under Section 2 9 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the D.V. Act” for short) by respondent nos.1 to 4 (original appellant nos.2 to 5) and thereby dismissed the D.V.Act case being Misc. Criminal Application No. 336/2015 filed against them.

3. The facts are as follows :

In this judgment the parties would be referred by their nomenclature in the application filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate under the D.V. Act. The petitioner is the applicant. Respondent nos.1 to 4 are the non-applicant nos.2 to 5. The non- applicant no.1, against whom the proceeding is pending as on today, is the husband of the applicant. The applicant and non-applicant no.1 got married in May,2005 at Akola. Non-applicant nos.2 and 3 are the in- laws of the applicant. Non-applicant no.4 is the brother of non- applicant no.1 and non-applicant no.5 is the wife of non-applicant no.4. Non-applicant no.1 is working as a Doctor in Beaumont Hospital, Michigan (America). After the marriage, on 15.09.2005, the applicant went to the United States of America (USA) to cohabit with her husband. The applicant and non-applicant no.1 resided together in America for almost nine years. They had been visiting India occasionally. The dispute arose between the applicant and non- applicant no.1. The applicant, therefore, finally came down to India with her daughter Shreeya in the year 2015 and took shelter with her father at Akola.

4. The applicant, apart from lodging report against the non- applicants at Gittikhadan Police Station, Akola, filed petition under Section 12 of the D.V. Act in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola through her father. It is the case of the applicant that non- applicant nos.1 to 5 subjected her to domestic violence both in America as well as in Mumbai. It is her case that in America, non-applicant no.1 subjected her to domestic violence and in Mumbai, non-applicant nos.2 to 5 subjected her to domestic violence as and when she would come to India and stay with them in Mumbai. It is further the case of the applicant that non-applicants made demand of money from her father. The applicant was interested in pursuing her studies. Non-applicant no.1 was required to spend for her education. Non-applicant nos.2 and 3, therefore, demanded huge amount from her parents to meet the expenses. It is stated that the applicant was subjected to mental and physical torture. She stayed with her father at Akola for some time. When she realized that non-applicant no.1 was not in any manner interested to continue the married life with her, she took admission to a medical course in a college at Pune. She has been pursuing her medical course. It is stated that non-applicants have not made provision for their maintenance. They have not provided her residence, which she is entitled to have at the cost of the non-applicants. Apart from this, she has stated that on account of mental and physical sufferings she has undergone at the hands of non-applicant nos.1 to 5, she is entitled to get compensation.

5. The non-applicants filed their reply and opposed the application. The non-applican