Read Time: 07 minutes
The court opined that “Domestic relationship may subsist between two persons, who live or have at any point lived together in a shared household, whether they are related by marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, or by consanguinity, or adoption, or as family members living in a joint family. Thus even marriage is not an essential ingredient for a person to be in a domestic relationship with another”.
The Delhi High Court, recently, held that foreign nationals regardless of their visa status could have a ‘shared household’ with another person under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The court further observed that nothing in the DV Act suggests that a ‘domestic relationship’ could only exist between two individuals holding Indian citizenship.
The bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held, “Even a foreign national, regardless of her visa status, could have a ‘shared household’ with another person within the meaning of the DV Act”.
These observations stemmed from a petition seeking to challenge the order issued by the Trial Court whereby the court had dismissed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).
Advocate Ravindra S. Garia, representing the petitioner, argued that the petitioner’s citizenship was irrelevant to the DV Act proceedings or the appeal arising therefrom. The petitioner was within her rights to refuse an amicable settlement with the respondent, and it was foreseeable that probing into her citizenship status might lead to her deportation, which would advantage the respondent by relieving him of facing proceedings under the DV Act.
Advocate Naginder Kumar, representing the respondents, contended that the issue of citizenship emerged because, in the complaint filed under the DV Act before the Magistrate, the petitioner had listed her permanent address as Kabul, Afghanistan, and provided her current address as a location in Shakarpur, Delhi, which was the address of the Advocate representing her.
The court noted that the trial court believed the petitioner's citizenship status was crucial to determining the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act. However, the High Court held the view that the petitioner's claim of having a "shared household" with the respondent could not be resolved based on her citizenship status.
The court emphasized that to establish her case under the DV Act, the petitioner needed to demonstrate that she had a ‘shared household’ with the respondent. However, the resolution of this issue did not depend on her citizenship status, as even a foreign national, regardless of her visa status, could have a ‘shared household’ within the meaning of the DV Act.
The court cautioned against conflating proceedings under the DV Act with those under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The preamble of the DV Act indicated that the objective of the legislation had no connection with a woman's citizenship.
The court further observed that Section 12 of the DV Act provided that an ‘aggrieved person’ could file an application before a concerned Magistrate seeking relief under the statute, including the right of every woman in a ‘domestic relationship’ with a respondent to reside in the ‘shared household’.
The court noted, “As is seen on a plain reading of the foregoing relevant sections, the citizenship of a woman does not find mention anywhere in those provisions; and is therefore of no relevance to an application under section 17 of the DV Act”.
The court also contemplated a scenario where a woman who had temporarily resided in India and left the country due to visa expiration or being forced out by her husband or partner would still be entitled to protection under the DV Act as an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the DV Act.
Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order and disposed of the petition.
Case Title: Bibi Sabera v Major Dr. Chandra Shekhar Pant (2024:DHC:5835)
Please Login or Register
