Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Aditya Anand Varma, his parents Anand Prakash Varma and Aarti Anand Varma, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging an order dated 20 January 2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai. The Magistrate had rejected their application (Exhibit 9) to dismiss Domestic Violence Application No.112/DV/2020 filed by the respondent No.2, Harsha Aditya Varma (nee Harsha Singh). The background facts reveal that the families of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were introduced with a view to have a matrimonial alliance. A Roka (engagement) ceremony was held on 6 May 2018 at the residence of the petitioners in Mumbai. The petitioners claimed that the engagement was broken off on 23 August 2018. However, petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 secretly solemnized marriage on 26 November 2018 under the Special Marriage Act. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) alleging domestic violence. The petitioners sought dismissal of the complaint on the ground that there was no domestic relationship as the marriage was not valid and the engagement was broken off. The Magistrate rejected the application, leading to the present petition. The court analyzed the definitions under the DV Act, particularly 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f), which includes a relationship in the nature of marriage. The court held that an engagement can create a relationship in the nature of marriage, and thus the complaint was maintainable. The court also considered the concept of 'shared household' under Section 2(s) and held that the in-laws' residence can be a shared household if the aggrieved person has a right of residence. The court further held that in-laws can be made respondents under Section 2(q) of the DV Act. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Magistrate's order and directing the Magistrate to proceed with the DV complaint in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence Act - Maintainability of Complaint - Domestic Relationship - Engagement - The court considered whether a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable when the parties were engaged but marriage was not solemnized. Held that a domestic relationship includes a relationship in the nature of marriage, and an engagement can create such a relationship. The complaint was held maintainable. (Paras 4-10) B) Domestic Violence Act - Shared Household - Right of Residence - The court examined the concept of shared household under Section 2(s) of the DV Act. Held that the shared household includes the residence where the aggrieved person has a right of residence, and the in-laws' residence can be a shared household if the aggrieved person lived there or had a right to live there. (Paras 11-15) C) Domestic Violence Act - In-laws as Respondents - The court considered whether in-laws can be made respondents in a DV complaint. Held that the definition of 'respondent' under Section 2(q) includes relatives of the husband or male partner, and thus in-laws can be respondents. (Paras 16-20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is maintainable when the marriage was not solemnized and the engagement was broken off, and whether the petitioners (in-laws) can be considered as respondents under the Act.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The order dated 20 January 2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai is upheld. The Magistrate is directed to proceed with the Domestic Violence Application No.112/DV/2020 in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Domestic relationship includes engagement
- shared household includes residence where aggrieved person has right of residence
- DV Act applies to in-laws even if marriage not solemnized
- Section 12 DV Act complaint maintainable despite broken engagement
