Daily Archives: December 25, 2015

Wife says husband divorced her, was violent. Court ask “where is DV if U R divorced & apart”! DELHI MM

A smart Wife files a DV case on her husband. claims that the husband is cruel, has divorced her, and there was Domestic violence. The Hon Court sees thru her game and asks "where is DV if YOU ARE divorced & apart"! DELHI MMcourt case !!

So, this husband who appears party in person, wins the case !!

"…10. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent chose to pursue his case himself without any advocate from the stage of respondent’s evidence and had addressed final arguments himself…"

The husband places the following counter arguments "…Respondent No.1 filed his reply wherein he stated that complainant has not disclosed the true facts. He further stated that respondent No.2 and 3 were residing separately and complainant has no right to file this application against them. It is further stated that respondent has never committed any kind of domestic violence upon the complainant. He has denied all the allegations made by her. He has provided all kinds of facilities to the complainant and children. It is further stated that the behaviour of complainant is rough and cruel towards him and his family members. She lodged the complaint dated 27.07.2007 at PS New Friends Colony and left her matrimonial home with children in his absence and also took Rs. 12,000/- with her. It is further stated that she is in illicit relationship with her brother in law namely Najim …."

The Hon court notices that ".. The act of violence committed by respondent upon complainant has not been proved. Simultaneously respondent has also failed to prove that she is in illicit relationship with her brother in law Najim. He has not filed any document in this respect.
…."

The hon court notices that the couple are divorced, also living apart and so dismisses DV "…..Since, the relationship between the parties have come to an end, no relief can be granted to the complainant for herself under this Act. The present application is dismissed qua the complainant….."

however children get maintenance

**************************************

IN THE COURT OF MS. VANDANA JAIN: MM-03:
MAHILA COURT: SED: SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI

CC- 08/01/15

Smt. Ruheen
W/o Saib Arfi
R/o J-4, Batla House,
near Khaleel Nagar, Okhla,
New Delhi …….Complainant

Versus

1. Saib Arfi (Husband)
R/o 10-A, near Alnoor Masjid
Jamia Nagar, Okhla,
New Delhi.
2. Saquib Arfi (Jeth)
R/o H.No. ___ Satti Mohalla,
Roorkee, Uttranchal.
3. Khalid Arfi (Jeth)
R/o H. No. ____ Bekan Ganj,
Kanpur, U.P. ….. Respondents

Date of institution of case : 04.04.2008
Date of Reserving order : 17.12.2015
Date of Order : 22.12.2015
Final Order : Partly allowed

JUDGMENT

1. The brief facts of the present case are that complainant was married to respondent no. 1 on 12.05.1996 as per Muslim rites and ceremonies and four children namely (1) Subuhi Arfi, aged 11 years, (2) Hiba Arfi, aged 9 years, (3). Owais Arfi aged 7 years and (4) Alishba Arfi aged 3 months (at the time of filing of application) were born out of CC No. 08/1/15 Ruheen Vs. Saib Arfi this wedlock.

2. It is further stated that since the birth of children, respondent had not taken any liability for their livelihood, education, medical treatment or any other expense of children. It is further stated that after marriage respondent No. 1 started committing cruelty upon the complainant by beating her physically and making her starve and demanding dowry.

3. It is further stated that seeing all this, the old mother of complainant who is widow decided to purchase a house in the name of complainant bearing R-10-A, 2nd floor, Nafis Road, near Alnoor Masjid, Batla House, New Delhi and had handed over the same to her and complainant alongwith her children and respondent started residing at the aforesaid address as he was not having shelter to keep the complainant either on tenancy or in some other accommodation owned by the respondent.

4. It is further stated that the respondent did not stop beating her and forced her to transfer the said house in his name which was denied by her. He threatened to forged the documents and sell the house. Complainant moved a complaint before CAW Cell and an FIR U/sec. 498-A/406 IPC was registered against him. It is further stated that on one occasion respondent tried to strangulate her due to which she sustained visible swelling on her face and she was medically examined in this regard. Even after moving a CC No. 08/1/15 Ruheen Vs. Saib Arfi complaint, no action was taken by the police.

5. Respondent is doing a business and earning Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- per month. She has sought maintenance for herself and her children.

6. Notice of the application was issued upon respondents No. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No.1 filed his reply wherein he stated that complainant has not disclosed the true facts. He further stated that respondent No.2 and 3 were residing separately and complainant has no right to file this application against them. It is further stated that respondent has never committed any kind of domestic violence upon the complainant. He has denied all the allegations made by her. He has provided all kinds of facilities to the complainant and children. It is further stated that the behaviour of complainant is rough and cruel towards him and his family members. She lodged the complaint dated 27.07.2007 at PS New Friends Colony and left her matrimonial home with children in his absence and also took Rs. 12,000/- with her. It is further stated that she is in illicit relationship with her brother in law namely Najim who was residing in front of Karkhana/ factory of respondent and whenever he raised objection, she used to pick up quarrel with the respondent. He kept on condoning the cruelty of complainant for the sake of future of his children but she in order to humiliate him and to grab his property threatened him for false implication in a case. It is further stated that H. No. R-10-A, 2nd floor, Nafis Road, near CC No. 08/1/15 Ruheen Vs. Saib Arfi Alnoor Masjid, Batla House, New Delhi was purchased by the respondent by his own money in the name of complainant for satisfying her whims. It is further stated that all the house hold articles like fridge, T.V. Washing machine etc. were purchased by him. It is further stated that CAW Cell Official refused to register FIR against him as no offence was made out. It is further stated that due to act of complainant and his brother in law Najim, he became workless and jobless and is running here and there to meet day to day expenses. It is further stated that application is false and frivolous once and is liable to be dismissed.

7. During the interim stage respondent was directed to pay the monthly fee of the children as per the prior school of the children on 21.04.2010. Thereafter matter was listed for complainant’s evidence.

8. Complainant filed her affidavit and examined herself as CW1. Thereafter she closed her evidence. Respondent also filed his affidavit and further filed an additional affidavit and got himself examined as RW1. Thereafter, respondent’s evidence was closed.

9. I have heard the final arguments on behalf of both the parties and have perused the records carefully.

10. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent chose to pursue his case himself without any advocate from the stage of respondent’s evidence and had addressed final arguments himself.

11. I have perused the records carefully.

12. In order to seek relief under this act, complainant has to prove that she is an aggrieved person. In order to prove that she is an aggrieved person, she should be subjected to acts of domestic violence. Domestic violence has been defined under Section 3 of this Act provided here as under:

For the purpose of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it-

(a) harms or injuries or endangers the health, safety, life, limp or well-being, whether mental or physical, or the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or

(b) harasses, harms, injuries or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or

(c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or

(d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person.

13. Complainant has stated that she was beaten by the respondent and respondent used to demand dowry from her in the form of money etc. but she has not filed any complaint on record to show that any kind was of violence was committed upon her. She has stated in her application that respondent tried to strangulate her and she was medically examined but no MLC or medical document has been placed on record by her. In the affidavit, she had stated that she was beaten with a glass bottle but in her cross-examination she has stated that she was beaten by a plastic bottle. The act of violence committed by respondent upon complainant has not been proved. Simultaneously respondent has also failed to prove that she is in illicit relationship with her brother in law Najim. He has not filed any document in this respect.

14. Apart from above said discussions, she has also stated in her cross-examination that after divorce she had never lived with her husband. It is case where the complainant is admitting that she has been divorced by the husband whereas respondent has put a suggestion in the cross-examination of complainant to her that she had never obtained any divorce which was denied by the complainant. That means, complainant has been divorced by respondent. It is settled proposition of law that in order to invoke the provision of this Act, there should be a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in the shared household meaning thereby the relationship between two persons should be existing at the time of filing of application under Domestic Violence Act. Since, the relationship between the parties have come to an end, no relief can be granted to the complainant for herself under this Act. The present application is dismissed qua the complainant.

15. As far as children are concerned, it is an admitted fact that four children were born out of the wedlock and they are studying. Both the parents are duty bound to bring them up and to make provision for their personal and educational expenses. It is also not disputed that all the four children are in the custody of complainant and she is bearing their expenses despite the fact that she is not doing anything. Respondent, being a father, is under an obligation to provide their maintenance. It is stated by the respondent that he is plying a rickshaw. In the own reply filed by the respondent, he has stated that he was running a factory, though he has not mentioned as to what he was earning from the business carried on by him. Complainant has stated in her application that respondent is doing the business and is earning Rs. 25,000/- to 30,000/- per month. No document has been filed by both the parties to prove the income of respondent. At the same time, respondent had not alleged any disability or infirmity of any kind in order to show that he is not capable of earning. Keeping in view the fact he is an able bodied man and nature of business he was carrying on earlier, his income is assessed to be Rs. 20,000/- per month which is divided in 6 portions, two portions to be retained by the respondent No.1, being the earning member and one portion CC No. 08/1/15 Ruheen Vs. Saib Arfi each for the four children. Amount of Rs. 2200/- per month to each child is granted as maintenance from the date of filing of this application till the time they are legally entitled to receive the same. Payment made by the respondent No. 1 during the pendency of the case shall stand adjusted. Arrears be cleared by respondent within three months from today.

16. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced in the open (VANDANA JAIN)
Court 22th December, 2015) MM-03: MAHILA COURT,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT:
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
22.12.2015

*****************

FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases

regards

Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn’t given up, Male, activist

43 DV cases for this season ! 43 cases where husband and in laws won and / or maintenance was denied to wife !!

I have been posting 100s of Judgments / orders on 498a, DV, Sec 125 CrPC and many related areas (please see this blog and you will see most of these). Recently I have started categorizing them for easy reference and benefit of readers. Some ago I had posted a summary of bail orders and yet another on 498a cases quashed by courts.

Here is an attempt to collate DV cases, where the husbands / in laws won.

Since money is the main target of most fake matrimonial litigation, DV along with Sec 24, 25 HMA and similar sections of SMA etc are now becoming the chosen tools for women to extract max moolah. Husbands and families need to watch out and protect themselves
I hope this compendium helps
Cases are listed with a # against each just for a count in this blog. these were also shared on other social media. This # series does not have any specific order . I’m only hoping I’ll have a chance to add more victories to these

May I request readers to liberally share these and add fresh cases as comments 

 

DV Series # 43 : DV 15yrs aftr separation!! MM grants maint etc. Husband runs 2 HC; HC quashes whole tamasha ! married on 8.5.1990 ; son born on 24.2.1991 ; separate since 1992;  divorce case between couple dismissed by lower courts; wife files DV in 2007 !!;  magistrate provides maintenance, money in lieu of residence etc etc ; husband runs to HC;  HC thankfully quashes the case !!! http://wp.me/p7s7-1hm

DV Series#42 : NO MAINTENANCE to wife under Domestic Violence Act as she has sufficient income and concealed it !! Practicing Gynecologist stops declaring full income on income tax returns; harasses ex hubby in various courts / cases ; demands monthly maintenance even though she earns more than ex-husband !! Completely denined maintenance http://wp.me/p7s7-u0

DV Series#41 : Wife earning equal to husband denied maintenance in DV. Sessions & Delhi HC ALSO deny maintenance! Residence also denied as wife getting HRA from employment! http://wp.me/p7s7-2dO

 

DVSeries#40: Poor Taxi Driver’s wife tries to get his mother’s house using DV ! Looses case on appeal. Wife is ordered to live with driver in an alternate acco. Without going there she tries other stunts and looses again !! https://t.co/7sPcN3008x

 

DvSeries#39 : DV just 2 harass husband + inlaws & waste time of court. Wife never came to court !! DV dismissed. JM Chandigarh https://t.co/CD6H8E2ZCd

 

DVSeries#38: Initial Proceedings in DV act are CIVIL in nature. Magistrate not issue summons u/s 61 Cr.P.C. treating respondents as accused ! Magistrate to tread carefully http://wp.me/p7s7-1dM

 

DVSeries#37: DV cases can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC. Gujarat HC division bench judgement – Nov 2015 http://wp.me/p7s7-1T6

 

DVSeries#36: Well educated employed wife resigning on own NOT entitled 2 maintenance! Only Kid gets maintenancec. Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bv

 

DVSeries#35: Visiting in laws 5days is NOT dom relation so NO DV ! Only violence by person living n shared household is DV! Delhi Sessions court discharges all in laws http://wp.me/p7s7-21n

 

DVSeries#34: Wife files DV on 6 inlaws 9 yrs AFTER husband’s death! DV, Cruelty NOT proven, Looses case ! Delhi MM court http://wp.me/p7s7-20C

 

DVSeries#33:LOVE match 2 court! DV b4 marriage! 498a 307 323 AFTR marage. Sis in law runs 4 quash http://wp.me/p7s7-1PW

 

DvSeries#32: No maintenance to erring women ! DV case won by husband on strong arguments & facts. http://wp.me/p7s7-1MF

 

DVSeries#31: Beaten &evicted elderly M in law WINS DV. Sessions orders lower court 2 grant relief http://wp.me/p7s7-1PS

 

DVSeries#30: India becoming land of fake DV? Madras HC dismisses fake DV 2 settle property dispute http://wp.me/p7s7-1OV

 

DVSeries#29: Your Honour I doNOT know her, she’s NOT my wife How could I beat her or my brother mollest? what DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Pl

 

DVSeries#28: NON disclosure of pre cognizance DV NOT dis entitle you from GOVT JOB ! Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1OL

 

DVSeries#27: Sister married 40yrs ago files DV on brothers 4 property !! MP HC decrees NO DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mt

 

DVSeries#26: Wife earning equal 2 hubby NOT get maint NOR residence under DV! Delhi Sessions Court http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mq

 

DVSeries#25: WIFE already making moolah in sec 125 CrPC cannot make MORE moolah using DV !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1p0

 

DVSeries#24: DV Act does not create any additional right to claim maintenance !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1q6

 

DVSeries#23: Raj HC : Wife who leaves 3yr old kid & goes away, files 498a DV Looses kid’s custody! http://wp.me/p7s7-1CG

 

DVSeries#22: IF paying maint in DV seek reducn of S 125 maintenance! MP HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1F9

 

DVSeries#21: Rare order (not the norm!) : NO arrest for NON payment of DV maintenance. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fm

 

DVSeries#20: No DV cases on relatives (say inlaws) who are NOT in domestic relationship! Andhra HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Ww

 

DVSeries#19: DV case on elders, relatives etc quashed. Only husband to fight ! Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1IF

 

DvSeries#18: Max 1 month arrst 4 maint arrears. No DV maint enhance by session court. Karnat HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fn

 

DVSeries#17: Gulf based NRI earng 65K pm 2 pay ONLY 6K to wife: Kerala DV case with LOW LOW maint http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fj

 

DVSeries#16: Husband can sell his house when he wants!! DV can’t stop that. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fl

 

DVSeries#15:IF Wife can’t prove DV, children ALSO NOT entitled maintenance under DV. Bombay HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1wz

 

DVSeries#14:Need Cent Govt permission 2 investigate offence outside India Good case 4 DV, Dowry NRI http://wp.me/p7s7-1zE

 

DVSeries#13: 24 HMA Intr. maint reduced bcaz wife already getting DV maintenance !! MP, HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bh

 

DVSeries#12: BOM HC : NO DV if couple not living 2gther not sharing h hold! NO DV 5yrs aftr dvorce! http://wp.me/p7s7-1yS

 

DVSeries#11:Wife Can’t return frm abroad &file DV 1yr aftr sepraton! Not in domst rel.ship: Bom HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1yG

 

DVSeries#10: Personal appearance NOT essential in DV case : Kerala HC : appear thru counsel http://wp.me/p7s7-1wI

 

DVSeries#09: Wife tries DV aftr mutual dvorc &delay! LOOSES @SC. SC supports 1yr timelimit for DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1×8

 

DVSeries#08: DV on inlaws 5yrs aftr huby death! Wife wants piece of house Dhingra ji send her back! http://wp.me/p7s7-1xu

 

DVSeries#07:SuprmCourt: If DV filed, police 2 make enqury frm family, neighbours,freinds, b4 case! http://wp.me/p7s7-1wJ

 

DVSeries#06: Wife’s 172 days delay in filing revision for DV case NOT accepted by Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1×7

 

DVSeries#05: Womn caught lying in cross exam about DV & dowry looses case gets NO Money! Delhi MM http://wp.me/p7s7-1MV

 

DVSeries#04: Dghtr in law forcefully enter FIL’s house & tries DV residnce. Looses completely. http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nq

 

DVSeries#03: Live-in woman claims rape, DV, cheating, bigamy etc 9yrs later! P&H HC throws her out http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nt

 

DVSeries#02: Every failed marriage NOT DV! Fake DV case after 498a quashed by Del HC. http://wp.me/p7s7-1NG

 

DVSeries#01: Serial case filing wife’s DV quashed by Karnatk HC “nothing but abuse of process of Court” http://wp.me/p7s7-1Qj

 

DIL visiting inlaws fewdays is NOT in dom relation wid them, NO DV! 498a, DV cocktail @ Delhi Sessions court

 

A young woman, a daughter in law, is invited to a party thrown by the father in law retiring from service. To attend this party, she stays at the in father in law’s place a few days. But some domestic quarrel develops between herself and her husband. She files Domestic violence case on four of in laws saying it all happened when she was at their place !!

The court appreciates the facts and says (a) this DIL is not in domestic relationship with the in laws and visiting them a few days does not become domestic relationship (b) The is a distinction between an offence or violence between people in a domestic relationship and those outside. For other alleged quarrels / fights / offences a separate 498a etc FIR has been lodged based on wife’s complaint and so that can’t be DV!! Quoting cornerstone cases, The Hon court discharges all the in laws !!

Excerpts :

“…….It has been further held in the said judgment that where a family member leaves the shared household to establish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application u/S 12 of the D.V. Act on the basis of domestic relationship. It is the case of the respondent herself that after their marriage, they shifted to Vikas Puri and, thereafter, to Rohini. There is nothing in the application u/s 12 of the D. V Act to suggest that the respondent and her husband had been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right at Janak Puri……”

” …….. 9. So far as the incident that occurred on 2.7.2014 is concerned, a separate FIR has been registered under Sections 324/498A/34 IPC at PS Janak Puri but the said incident cannot be covered under the D.V. Act. There is a distinction between violence committed on a person living separate in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in the shared household. Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can constitute domestic violence. For taking this view I am supported with the judgment Vijay Verma (supra)…..”

******************************

Delhi District Court

Satish Solanki & Ors vs Sujata on 22 December, 2015

Author: Sh. Parveen Kumar

IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE,
PC ACT, CBI­III, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

Criminal Appeal No.70/15

Satish Solanki & Ors. ……..Appellants
vs.
Sujata ……..Respondent

File received on assignment on : 03.10.2015
Arguments heard on : 15.12.2015
Judgment announced on : 22.12.2015

JUDGMENT:

1. This is an appeal against the order dated 2.7.2015 passed by Ld. MM, Mahila Court North­West, Rohini Courts, Delhi on application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short ‘D.V. Act’) whereby appellants were summoned to appear before the trial court.

2. Briefly stating, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present criminal appeal are that respondent was married to Vikas Solanki on 17.7.2013 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Both were divorcee before their marriage. After marriage, respondent and her husband­ Vikas Solanki lived at Flat No. 1094, 9th Floor, SBI Enclave, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. On 3.11.2013, they shifted to House No. H­19/129, Sector­7, Rohini, Delhi and lived there upto 13.3.2014. Thereafter, the respondent left the company of her husband from their house at Rohini and stayed at her parental house. In May 2014, respondent again joined the company of her husband and stayed with him till 2nd July, 2014. It is averred that since 3.7.2014, respondent has been living at her parents house. On these allegations, application u/s 12 of D.V. Act was filed by respondent against her husband and appellants herein.

3. Appellant no. 1 is the father­in­law, appellant no. 2 is the mother­in­law, appellant no. 3 is the brother­in­law (Devar) and appellant no. 4 is the sister­in­law (Devarani) of the respondent. All were/are residents of B­1/152, Janak Puri, New Delhi.

4. I have heard Ch. Ram Kishan, Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Sh. D. K. Ahlwat, Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has contended that appellant no. 1 has retired on superannuation as Supdt. from Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 30.6.2014 and on the eve of his retirement, a party was arranged at Janak Puri, New Delhi in the night of 30.6.2014. The said party was attended by respondent, her husband and others. The respondent and her husband were called from their residence at Rohini a few days before the day of party for helping in making arrangements. In the night of 2.7.2014, some domestic quarrel took placed between respondent and her husband whereupon she visited the Police Station Janak Puri on 3.7.2014 at about 6.00 PM and lodged a complaint. On her said complaint, FIR no. 748/2014 under Section 324/498A/34 IPC was registered. According to Ld. Counsel, only the violence committed in the shared household is covered under the provisions of the D.V. Act. The house at Janak Puri, a self acquired property of the father of appellant no. 1, cannot be considered a shared household as respondent and her husband were living separately in Vikas Puri and Rohini. They have come to the house of appellant no. 1 at Janak Puri on 30.6.2014 to attend the party thrown by him and stayed there for few days. Secondly, it is contended that the alleged incident that occurred on 2.7.2014 cannot be treated as an incident of domestic violence as separate FIR has been lodged for the said incident. In support of his contentions Ld. Counsel has relied upon judgments­S. R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra, 2007 (3) SCC 169; Vijay Verma vs. State, 2010 (118) DRJ 520; Sangeeta vs. Om Parkash, 2015 (3) JCC 1896; Preeti Gupta vs. State, 2010 (4) Crimes 19 (SC); Pushpendu vs. State, 2015 (2) JCC 1359 and Ashish Dixit vs. State, 2013 Crl. LJ 1178.

6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court.

7. I have gone through the record.

8. Domestic relationship is defined under section 2 (f) of the D.V. Act. Domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved person (respondent) had lived together with the appellants in a shared household. This living together can be either soon before filing of petition, or ‘at any point of time’. The phrase ‘at any point of time’ under the D.V. Act has been defined in judgment Vijay Verma (supra) wherein it has been held that it only means where an aggrieved person has been continuously living in a shared household as a matter of right. It has been further held in the said judgment that where a family member leaves the shared household to establish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application u/S 12 of the D.V. Act on the basis of domestic relationship. It is the case of the respondent herself that after their marriage, they shifted to Vikas Puri and, thereafter, to Rohini. There is nothing in the application u/s 12 of the D. V Act to suggest that the respondent and her husband had been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right at Janak Puri. Domestic relationship continues so long as the parties live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared household.

9. So far as the incident that occurred on 2.7.2014 is concerned, a separate FIR has been registered under Sections 324/498A/34 IPC at PS Janak Puri but the said incident cannot be covered under the D.V. Act. There is a distinction between violence committed on a person living separate in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in the shared household. Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can constitute domestic violence. For taking this view I am supported with the judgment Vijay Verma (supra).

10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the opinion that summoning of the appellants on an application u/s 12 of the D.V. Act filed by the respondent was not justified. Thus, the impugned order passed by the trial court is set aside. Appellants are discharged. The criminal appeal stands disposed of. Trial court record be sent back with a copy of the order and appeal file be consigned to record room.

Announced in open (Praveen Kumar) court today on 22.12.2015.

Special Judge (PC Act),
CBI­III, Rohini Courts, Delhi.