Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has quashed a domestic violence case filed against the parents of the complainant’s daughter in-law, stating that there was no “domestic relationship” as defined under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), between the complainant and the petitioners.

The court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, was hearing a domestic violence complaint, filed by Kunjumol Das, the second respondent in the case, against Sunny Mathew, Jolly Mathew, and their daughter Soniya Mathew, alleging domestic abuse. However, the key issue in the case was whether Kunjumol had a domestic relationship with the petitioners, which is sine qua non under the DV Act.

Notably, the third petitioner, Soniya Mathew, married Kunjumol’s son, Aneesh Das, on February 19, 2018, and initially lived with her husband in a shared household in Kottarakara. Soniya claimed to have faced harassment and abuse from her in-laws, including Kunjumol, and sought legal action under the DV Act. Kunjumol, in turn, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act against her daughter-in-law Soniya and the latter’s parents. She requested an order restraining the petitioners from entering her residence.

The court clarified that under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, a “domestic relationship” is defined as a relationship where two persons live or have lived together in a shared household at any point of time. In this case, while there was a domestic relationship between Kunjumol and her daughter-in-law, Soniya, the same did not apply to Sunny and Jolly Mathew, as they had never shared a household with Kunjumol.

The court observed : “Section 2(a) of the DV Act defines `aggrieved person' as any woman who is, or has been, in the domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent…as far as petitioners 1 and 2, the parents of the 3rd petitioner, are concerned, they did not live or did not have at any point of time lived together in a shared household with the 2nd respondent herein and, therefore, they are neither related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption and nor they are family members living together as a joint family.”

Moreover, the court warned against the misuse of DV Act and invoking it without sharing a domestic relationship. The court emphasised, “when the proceedings under the DV Act are found to be abuse of process of Court, in order to secure the ends of justice and to save the parties being put into a frivolous litigation, the High Court must exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or under Section 528 of BNSS, otherwise abuse of process of Court could not be addressed or prevented.”

The court found that the proceedings were not maintainable, therefore, it quashed the proceedings in exercise of its inherent powers against the first two petitioners, Sunny and Jolly, the parents of Soniya Mathew.

 

Cause Title: Sunny Mathew v State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 1370 OF 2021]