Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 701
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SQN LDR PRABHAKAR BHATT & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MAJ ANNU LAMBA – Respondent
W.P.(CRL)-3356/2017
Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Mr. Akshay Chowdhary, Ms. Sonali Madaan
The right to reside in a shared household under the D.V. Act is guaranteed irrespective of the presence of domestic violence, and jurisdiction is determined by the residence of the aggrieved person.
Headnote:
(A) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 12 - Writ Petition filed for quashing of Complaint under D.V. Act - Petitioners claimed lack of territorial jurisdiction and vague allegations - Court held that the Respondent's assertion of residing in Delhi is valid, and the Complaint is maintainable - The right to reside in a shared household is guaranteed irrespective of domestic violence - Petition dismissed. (Paras 1, 4, 41, 56, 59)
(B) Jurisdiction - The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the residence of the aggrieved person, whether permanent or temporary - The Respondent's claim of residing at her parental home in Delhi is sufficient for jurisdiction. (Paras 40, 41)
(C) Domestic Violence - Definition includes physical, emotional, and economic abuse - The right to reside in a shared household is guaranteed under Section 17 of the D.V. Act, irrespective of domestic violence. (Paras 49, 55)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. marriage and residence details (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioners claim lack of jurisdiction (Para 4) |
| 3. petitioner's financial contributions (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. financial status of parties (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 5. allegations of infidelity (Para 18) |
| 6. jurisdiction based on residence (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 7. specific averments in the complaint (Para 47) |
| 8. definition of domestic violence (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 56 , 57) |
| 9. right to reside in shared household (Para 54 , 55) |
| 10. petition dismissed (Para 58 , 59) |
JUDGMENT :
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter „D.V.Act‟), pending before the Court of learned M.M.
2. Briefly stated, Petitioner No.1/Sqn. Ldr. Prabhakar Bhatt was married to Respondent/Major Annu Lamba while Petitioner No.2 and 3, Sh, Ghanshyam Bhatt and Smt. Pushpa Bhatt, are the parents of Prabhakar Bhatt.
3. Petitioner No.1 got married to the Respondent on 26.11.2011 according to Hindu Customs and Rites. Thereafter, they lived together in the matrimonial home in Allahabad for about one month. Thereafter, both of them resided at the place of their postings. Petitioner claimed that he and Respondent never ever resided together at Delhi despite which the Petition has been filed in Delhi.
4. The quashing of the Petition under the D.V. Act is sought on the ground that the Court in Delhi do not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Petition as the Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent never ever resided together in Delhi. Furthermore, the Petition contains vague and ambiguous allegations made in a routine manner, in a mechanical language. It contains completely false and frivolous accusations against the Petitioners. Without prejudice, Petitioners No. 2 & 3 (parents of petitioner No.1) have been unnecessarily made parties in this Complaint even though the Respondent has no grievance against them. They have been impleaded as a party only to harass and humiliate them at this old age. The entire family of Petitioner No.1 has been roped in with a view to seek vengeance.
5. It is further asserted that the Complaint contains only unsubstantiated allegations against the Petitioners. There are no specific incidents or even specific dates of alleged incident, which reflects the falsity of the Complaint.
6. Petitioner No.1 is serving as a Squadron Leader in Air Force and is posted in Agra whereas the Respondent is posted as a Senior Air Traffic Control Officer (SATCO), at Bhathinda. The present Petition is instituted to only embarrass the Petitioner No.1 and to jeopardize his career and cause hindrance in rendering service to the nation.
7. The Respondent is in fact, one year elder to the Petitioner No.1 and also senior in service to him. It is not reasonable to expect that Petitioners would commit any act of Domestic Violence upon her.
8. It is further stated that Respondent is seeking a Restraint Order and also for directions to the Petitioners not to alienate or create third party interest in the properties purchased using her money and matrimonial/shared household. The Respondent admittedly is the owner of one piece of land which is worth Rs.13 lakhs, which she was able to purchase only because the household expenses were being met by Petitioner No.1. The other piece of land in which she is the co-owner with the mother of Petitioner No.1, is now worth about Rs.17 lakhs. The Petitioner No.1, however, is not the owner/co-owner in these two properties.
9. It is further submitted that as per the knowledge of Petitioner No.1, Respondent‟s subscription towards PF was Rs.31,500/- while he has just contributed Rs.18,000/- month. He is also repaying a loan amount of Rs.6.
