$~55 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 25.02.2025 + CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 91/2025 SONALI GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv.

versus AMIT GUPTA @ SACHIN & ORS. .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH : JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL CRL.M.A. 6086/2025 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application is disposed of. CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 91/2025

1. This is a petition seeking to challenge the judgment dated 07.11.2024 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Court, wherein the Sessions Court has upheld the order dated 13.03.2024 passed by learned MM-02, Mahila Court, South Saket in complaint case No. 544/2024. 2. The facts are that the petitioner got married to respondent No. 1 on

31.01.2023 and there is no child born out of the wedlock.

3. Since the petitioner alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental abuse, anger and torture, she filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act against the respondent.

4. Respondent No. 1 is the husband, respondent No. 2 is the mother-in-law, respondent No. 3 is the brother-in-law.

5. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the sisters-in-law. Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that respondent No. 7 is the husband Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 91/2025 Page 1 of 12 of respondent No. 6.

6. The learned MM vide impugned order dated 13.03.2024, issued summons to only respondent No. 1 and declined to issue summons to respondent Nos. 2 to 7.

7. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act.

8. The learned District Judge vide judgment dated 07.11.2024 was pleased to uphold the order of the learned MM. 9. The learned District Judge held as under:

“9. The primary ground of filing the present appeal is that learned trial court has not summoned respondents no.2 to 7 despite there being specific allegations against them and they had committed domestic violence with appellant while residing in shared household.

10. The important issue that is to be addressed in the present appeal is, "whether a domestic relationship as provided under Section 2(f) of DV Act subsisted between the parties or not, so as to summon them as respondents in the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant against them. To deal with the aforesaid issue, it is necessary to understand the scheme of DV Act. Section 2(a) defines "aggrieved person" which means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent Section 2(f) describes "domestic relationship" which means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 91/2025 Page 2 of 12 related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Section 2(g) defines the term "domestic violence" which has been assigned and given the same meaning as in Section

3. Section 2(s) describes meaning of "shared household".

11. It is relevant to refer to the judgment in case titled Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi, Criminal Appeal No.511/2022 passed on 12.05.2022, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the following issues :-

“(ii) Whether it is mandatory for the aggrieved person to reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled at the point of commission of violence”?

(iii) Whether there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed?”

It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court :-

“In our view, the question raised about a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed must be interpreted in a broad and expansive way, so as to encompass not only a su