Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the respondent-complainant, filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of a complaint filed by the respondent under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The respondent had filed the complaint against her husband and the petitioners, alleging domestic violence. The petitioners contended that they did not share a 'domestic relationship' with the respondent as defined under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, as they never lived together in a shared household. The court examined the definitions under the DV Act, particularly Section 2(f) which defines 'domestic relationship' as a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or are family members living together as a joint family. The court noted that the respondent had not alleged that she lived with the petitioners in a shared household. The court held that the petitioners, being relatives of the husband, do not automatically fall within the ambit of the DV Act unless they share a domestic relationship with the complainant. Since the respondent did not claim to have lived with the petitioners, the complaint against them was an abuse of the process of law. The court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint and the summons issued against the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - Complaint under DV Act against in-laws who are not parties to a domestic relationship - Held that the complaint is liable to be quashed as the petitioners do not fall within the definition of 'respondent' under Section 2(q) of the DV Act, as they are not related by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage with the complainant (Paras 5-10). B) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Domestic Relationship - Section 2(f) - Definition - Held that a 'domestic relationship' means a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household, and are related by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or are family members living together as a joint family. Mere status as in-laws does not constitute a domestic relationship unless they lived together in a shared household (Paras 5-10). C) Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Respondent - Section 2(q) - Definition - Held that only persons who are in a domestic relationship with the complainant can be made respondents. The petitioners, being the husband's father, mother, brother, and sister, do not share a domestic relationship with the complainant as they never lived together in a shared household (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against the petitioners (in-laws) is maintainable when they do not share a 'domestic relationship' with the complainant as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The complaint in Crl.Misc.No.1716/2020 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kalaburagi and the summons issued against the petitioners are quashed.
Law Points
- Domestic relationship under DV Act requires shared household or consanguinity/marriage/relationship in nature of marriage
- relatives of husband not automatically covered
- quashing under Section 482 CrPC for abuse of process
