Read Time: 04 minutes
The magistrate court had issued summons to all the accused except the sister-in-law, reasoning that she did not share the same household. The complainant, however, appealed this decision resulting in the sessions court impleading the sister-in-law as an accused and said whether she shared the household or not will be determined during the trial
The Bombay High Court has quashed a domestic violence case against a woman, who is the sister-in-law of the complainant by marriage, observing that mere visits by her do not constitute a domestic relationship.
“Mere visits of the petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in the shared household. Even otherwise considering the pleadings in the applications read with the reliefs, there is no case of domestic violence made out,” the order read.
A single-judge bench of the high court, led by Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, was considering an appeal filed by the woman, who is married, against the sessions court’s order. The complainant had initiated a domestic violence case against her husband, mother-in-law, unmarried brother-in-law, and the married sister-in-law.
The magistrate court had issued summons to all the accused except the sister-in-law, reasoning that she did not share the same household. The complainant, however, appealed this decision resulting in the sessions court impleading the sister-in-law as an accused and said whether she shared the household or not will be determined during the trial.
Aggrieved by the session court’s order, the woman approached the HC. Advocate Satyvrat Joshi, representing her, contended that there was no domestic relationship between the parties within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, as the parties did not live together, or even in the past, had lived together in the shared household.
Joshi argued that the assertion that just because the sister-in-law would spend her whole day at the shared household, does not mean there was a domestic relationship. He added that the woman got married before the complainant’s wedding and was residing in her own matrimonial house.
Advocate Subodh Desai, representing the complainant, contended that specific acts constituting domestic violence had been pleaded against the sister-in-law.
The HC, however, concurred with the contentions of the sister-in-law and, accordingly, quashed the order passed by the sessions court.
XYZ vs State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
