Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9759
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
ANEESHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 3651 OF 2025|MC NO.17 OF 2024
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Domestic Violence
Act Referred
Headnote
Result: Crl. M.C. is allowed, quashing all proceedings against the petitioners.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.GOUTHAM KRISHNA U.B., SMT.SUBI S BINU
For the Respondents: SHRI.ABHIRAM T.K., SHRI.GOUTHAM KRISHNA U.B., SMT.SUBI S BINU, SHRI.ISAC SANJAY, SHRI.AYNOSH MICHAEL P.S.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of proceedings and basis for challenge. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. opposition arguments regarding domestic relationship. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's examination of shared household. (Para 4) |
PP. SMT. C.SEENA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026 Respondents 4 & 5 in M.C.No.17/2024 on the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam, filed this Crl.M.C. under Section 528 of BNSS, praying for quashing all further proceedings against them. The above M.C. was filed by the 2nd respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act .
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no domestic relationship between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent and as such the proceedings initiated against them under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act is an abuse of the process of the court and as such it is liable to be quashed.
3. The petition was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. According to the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, whenever the petitioners used to visit the shared household, they used to create troubles to the 2nd respondent.
4. On a perusal of Annexure A1 petition filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act itself it can be seen that the address of the petitioners are shown entirely different from that of the 2nd respondent. That means that the petitioners herein are not living along with the 2nd respondent in a shared household. Therefore, there is also no domestic relationship between them. In the above circumstances, the proceedings under of the initiated against the petitioners are unsustainable and as such this Crl.M.C. is liable to be allowed.
In the result, this Crl. M.C is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioners in M.C.No.17/2024 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IX, Ernakulam, is quashed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S.
Sd/-
