Gujarat High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Against Husband's Sisters Living Separately

Observing that no ingredients of domestic violence were made out against the sisters-in-law who had been residing separately, the Gujarat High Court quashed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

Case Background

A matrimonial dispute arose between the complainant wife, Aksanabanu Samirbhai Lakhani, and her husband, a dentist by profession. The wife alleged dowry demands for a laptop, watch, and mobile phone, and claimed that her in-laws instigated her husband. She filed a complaint under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22, and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act against the husband's entire family, including his sisters (petitioners No. 3 and 4). Notably, the wife had previously filed similar complaints in 2017, which were withdrawn after settlement. The present complaint was filed after she left the matrimonial home in July 2022.

Arguments Presented

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Kuldeep D. Vaidya, argued that the allegations against the sisters-in-law were vague and general. They emphasized that the sisters were married before the complainant's marriage and lived separately, never cohabiting with the couple. The petitioners further contended that the complainant had a history of filing multiple cases, indicating a strategy to harass the family.

Respondents' counsel, Advocate Aditya J. Pandya, opposed the quashing, claiming the wife suffered mental and physical torture in a joint family setting and that the sisters instigated her husband. Specific allegations included being treated as domestic help and denied contact with her parents.

Legal Analysis and Key Observations

Justice A.Y. Kogje scrutinized the complaint and found that the only allegation against the sisters-in-law was that they instigated the husband to demand dowry. The court observed that the sisters were married prior to the complainant and permanently resided separately. Therefore, the question of them causing mental or physical torture did not arise.

The court noted the general nature of the allegations and took judicial notice of the wife's previous complaints, which were withdrawn after settlement. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's observations in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) regarding the misuse of matrimonial laws to harass relatives, and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010), which cautioned against over-implication of family members living far away.

"The Court is of the opinion that looking to the complaint as a whole, the allegations are general in nature... Moreover, admittedly, petitioner Nos.3 and 4-the sisters-in-law of respondent No.1-complainant were married much prior to marriage of complainant and are residing separately. So question of mental and physical torture by them does not arise."

"The Court also finds that from the facts of the case, no ingredients are made out against petitioner Nos.3 and 4 under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act."

Court's Decision

The High Court allowed the petition in respect of the sisters-in-law (petitioners No. 3 and 4) and quashed Criminal Misc. Application No. 316 of 2022 pending before the 10th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, and all proceedings arising therefrom. The petition was dismissed as not pressed against the father-in-law and mother-in-law (petitioners No. 1 and 2). The court discharged the rule and ordered direct service.

This judgment reinforces the principle that family members living separately cannot be roped into domestic violence cases without specific allegations of their active participation, helping curb the misuse of matrimonial laws.