Read Time: 05 minutes

The Bombay High Court on Friday held that just because the complainant has not actually resided with her husband and his parents at their residence, this would not mean that she was not in a domestic relationship with them.

A single judge bench of Justice JA Jamadar further noted that the resistance to the continuation of matrimonial relationship, stemming from the allegations that one of the parents and other close family members of complainant were engaged in human trafficking, if found to be untrue, had the propensity to fall within the mischief of domestic violence, under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act, 2005).

These observations were made by the Court while dealing with a plea filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Bandra, Mumbai, on an Application preferred by a man and his parents to dismiss the Domestic Violence Application filed by his wife, whereby the said application came to be rejected.

Advocate JA Udaipuri urged on behalf of the petitioner that “shared household” was the linchpin of the domestic relationship and the living of the aggrieved person in such a domestic relationship was peremptory.

It was submitted that since the complainant had never shared the household with her husband at any point in time, at the residence of the husband's parents, the proceeding under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 was wholly untenable.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's dictum in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja wherein a three Judge Bench had considered the judicial connotation of “shared household” under the DV Act.

The High Court while relying on the Satish Chandra Ahuja Case noted that in the context of Section 17 of the DV Act, 2005, the expression “shared household” could not be restricted only to a household where a person aggrieved resides or at any stage resided in a domestic relationship.

".... the expression “right to reside in a shared household” cannot be restricted to actual residence. In other words, even in the absence of actual residence in the shared household, a woman in a domestic relationship can enforce a right to reside therein...", noted the bench.

Accordingly, the High Court held that the petition deserved to be dismissed on the count of maintainability as well as on merits.

Case Title: Aditya Anand Varma and Ors vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr