Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that family members who do not reside in a shared household are often unnecessarily implicated in domestic violence cases, leading to an abuse of the legal process. Court emphasized that such accusations must be scrutinized carefully before issuing notices under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The case involved a petition filed by Krishnawati Devi and six others seeking to quash proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The dispute stemmed from matrimonial discord between the complainant, Smrita Srivastava, and her husband, Rajiv Kumar Srivastava. The complainant had named multiple relatives of her husband, including his mother and married sisters, as respondents in the case.

The bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that under Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, a respondent must be in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. Section 2(f) defines a domestic relationship as one where two persons have lived together in a shared household. However, the court found that applicant nos. 2 to 6, being married sisters and other distant relatives, were residing separately and not in a shared household with the complainant.

Referring to previous rulings, including the Supreme Court's judgment in Hiral P. Harsora vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, the high court reiterated that only individuals in a domestic relationship who have lived in a shared household can be made respondents in a domestic violence complaint.

It, however, warned against the rising trend of implicating extended family members merely to exert pressure on the opposing party.

"This Court came across number of cases where just to harass the family of husband or the person in domestic relationship, aggrieved party used to implicate the relatives of other side who are not even living or lived with the aggrieved person in shared household and they have been residing at separate places. Therefore, courts below while issuing notice u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act must look into this fact from the perusal of the application filed u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act along with other available record including the report of the Protection Officer, if available on record," it said.

It added that the concerned courts before issuing notices to the persons impleaded as respondents in the application under Domestic Violence Act should satisfy the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in paragraph no. 13 of the present judgment which pertained to conditions that must be satisfied for holding a person liable u/s 3 of Domestic Violence Act.

Court held that the allegations against applicant nos. 2 to 6 lacked merit and quashed the proceedings against them. However, it upheld the case against the husband and mother-in-law, noting that they had been in a shared household with the complainant and faced specific allegations of harassment and dowry demands. Court directed that the trial proceedings against them be expedited and concluded within 60 days.

Case Title: Krishnawati Devi And 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another