Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dimple Khanna (mother-in-law of the complainant's husband) and Twinkle Khanna (sister-in-law), along with Akshay Kumar (husband of Twinkle), filed criminal writ petitions seeking quashing of proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the Act) initiated by the respondent, Anita Advani. The respondent had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bandra, alleging domestic violence. The petitioners argued that they were not in a 'domestic relationship' with the respondent as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, as they never lived together in a shared household. The court examined the definition of 'domestic relationship' and 'shared household' under the Act. It held that the term 'domestic relationship' requires a shared household or a relationship by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or family membership living together as a joint family. The court found that the respondent had not alleged that she ever lived with the petitioners in a shared household. The petitioners were merely relatives of the respondent's husband, and there was no evidence of a domestic relationship. The court concluded that the proceedings against the petitioners were an abuse of process and quashed them under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitions were allowed, and the complaint against the petitioners was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Domestic Violence - Domestic Relationship - Section 2(a) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The term 'domestic relationship' requires a shared household or a relationship by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or family membership living together as a joint family. Mere acquaintance or friendship does not constitute a domestic relationship. The court held that the petitioners, being the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant's husband, were not in a domestic relationship with the complainant as they never lived together in a shared household. (Paras 5-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The High Court has inherent power to quash criminal proceedings if the allegations do not disclose any offence or are frivolous. The court held that since the petitioners were not in a domestic relationship with the complainant, the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act were an abuse of process and liable to be quashed. (Paras 11-15) C) Domestic Violence - Shared Household - Section 2(s) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - A 'shared household' means a household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship. The court noted that the complainant never lived with the petitioners in any household, and therefore, the petitioners could not be considered as part of a shared household. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who are the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant's husband, can be said to be in a 'domestic relationship' with the complainant under Section 2(a) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and whether the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings in C.C. No. 25/DV/2012 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, against the petitioners.
Law Points
- Domestic relationship under Section 2(a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 requires shared household or consanguinity/marriage/relationship in nature of marriage
- not mere acquaintance or friendship
- Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC when allegations do not constitute offence
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 is not intended to be used against persons who are not in domestic relationship with complainant
