Case Note & Summary
The case involves a petition filed by Mrs. Kinjal Jayesh Mehta challenging an order of the Sessions Court that set aside the Metropolitan Magistrate's dismissal of a Domestic Violence application against her. The respondent No.1, Mrs. Disha Jimit Sanghvi, had filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) against her husband, mother-in-law, unmarried brother-in-law, and the petitioner, who is her married sister-in-law. The Metropolitan Magistrate, after considering the definition of 'respondent' under Section 2(q) and 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f), dismissed the application against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner never resided with the respondent No.1 in the shared household. The Magistrate noted that the petitioner's address was her matrimonial home, separate from the shared household where the respondent No.1 lived with her husband and in-laws. The respondent No.1 appealed to the Sessions Court, which allowed the appeal and set aside the Magistrate's order, holding that the petitioner could be considered a respondent. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The High Court examined the definitions under the DV Act and found that the petitioner, being a married sister-in-law residing separately with her own family, did not share a domestic relationship with the respondent No.1 as they never lived together in the shared household. The court emphasized that the definition of 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f) requires parties to live together in a shared household. Since the petitioner never lived with the respondent No.1, she could not be considered a 'respondent' under Section 2(q). The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Sessions Court's order, and restored the Magistrate's order dismissing the application against the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence Act - Domestic Relationship - Definition under Section 2(f) - The court considered whether a married sister-in-law who resides separately with her own family and never lived with the complainant in the shared household falls within the definition of 'domestic relationship'. Held that domestic relationship requires living together in a shared household, and the petitioner, being a married sister-in-law residing separately, does not qualify as a respondent under Section 2(q) of the DV Act. (Paras 4-6) B) Domestic Violence Act - Respondent - Maintainability of Application - The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application against the petitioner for lack of domestic relationship. The Sessions Court reversed this order. The High Court restored the Magistrate's order, holding that the petitioner was not in a domestic relationship with the complainant as they never lived together in the shared household. (Paras 4-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a married sister-in-law who never resided with the complainant in the shared household can be considered a 'respondent' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Sessions Court order dated 16th September 2023, and restored the Metropolitan Magistrate's order dated 18th October 2022 dismissing the DV application against the petitioner.
Law Points
- Domestic relationship under DV Act requires living together in a shared household
- Married sister-in-law not residing with complainant is not a respondent
- Section 2(f) of DV Act defines domestic relationship
- Section 2(q) defines respondent
- Section 12 application maintainability
