is also alleged that the petitioner has inflated ego, considering himself superior to everyone, and used to tell the aggrieved person/present respondent No.2 that society is male dominated, where a female must comply with the choices and desires of the male members of the household and remain subordinate to them. She further alleged that the petitioner strategically damaged her relationship with her parents and other family members through unfounded accusations and that she has been subjected to severe mental and physical torture by respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 [the present petitioner in D.V. Case No. 08/2024]. Having no other alternative, she filed a domestic violence case seeking protection under Section 18 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; accommodation under Section 19(f); monetary relief of Rs. 2,72,00,000/- under Section 20; interim relief of Rs. 1,50,000/- under Section 23(2); custody of her children under Section 21; and compensation of Rs.3,00,00,000/- under Section 22, along with interim prayers for the reliefs as mentioned.

4. However, it is the case of the present petitioner that respondent No. 2 sent the notice of D.V. Case No. 08/2024 to the petitioner at his parents’ residential address, without mentioning any date. Further, the petitioner’s parents informed him about the said notice over the phone. The petitioner was surprised by the misleading and false statements made by respondent No. 2 in the complaint, especially since respondent No. 2 had never stayed with the petitioner. The petitioner is a national of Singapore and has been residing there since 1997, whereas respondent No. 2 has all along been residing with her husband, namely Sri Ashish Chhabra, who is the petitioner’s younger brother at Kahikuchi, Kamrup (M), Assam. Subsequently, the petitioner enquired about the notice with his younger brother, who informed him that his wife (i.e., present respondent No. 2) had filed the said case against him and his family due to a dispute between them regarding their marital relationship and their business.

5. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed in D.V. Case No. 08/2024, as well as the issuance of a notice without mentioning a date, the present petitioner has preferred this petition for quashing of the same.

6. Ms. Malakar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner is the brother-in-law of the respondent No.2/complainant. She further submits that the complaint petition filed by respondent No. 2 is not maintainable, as the alleged matrimonial dispute pertains to a residence in Guwahati, where the present petitioner never resided. The petitioner has been residing in Singapore since 1997 and acquired Singaporean citizenship in 2014. It is further contended that the petitioner is the Managing Director of his own company, “Lodestar Holding Limited,” based in Singapore. He married Cheryl Tan, a Singaporean and a school teacher, in 2008, and they are presently living as a happy couple with three children [two daughters and a son]. The petitioner has no business in India, nor is he a business partner in any enterprise with respondent No. 2 or her husband, nor does he hold any share in their business.

7. In support of her submission, she relies on the decision passed by the Bombay High Court, reported in 2018 SCC Online Bom 17170 [Avinash Madhav Deshpande & Ors. vs. Madhuri Satish Deshpande & Ors. wherein, it has been held that the relatives of the husband cannot be roped in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, merely on the basis of vague or omnibus allegation. Paragraph 6 and 7 of the said judgement read as under:

“6. By now, in view of the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana it is settled position of law that the relatives of the husband cannot be roped in the proceedings initiated under Section 498A or the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act,