Category Archives: No Dv case without a shared houshold !!

NO DV case IF accused are NOT in domestic relationship, NOT living in same house !! Delhi HC

woman files DV case on ppl NOT living in the same house and delhi HC clearly thows out her appeal ..also quotes extensively from “… Harbans Lal Malik Vs. Payal Malik…” including key paras about roping in ppl NOT living in same house !!


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision : September 09, 2016

CRL.M.C. 46/2013

BABITA @ KAVITA                                    ….. Petitioner
Represented by:          Mr.K.P.Jain, Advocate for
Mr.O.P.Saxena and Mr.S.Kumar,
Advocates

versus

STATE & ORS.                                       ….. Respondents
Represented by:          Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Kapil Kumar, PS M.S.Park
Mr.S.K.S.Bhaduria, Advocate for R-2 and R-3

CRL.M.C. 2637/2014

BABITA @ KAVITA                                    ….. Petitioner
Represented by:          Mr.K.P.Jain, Advocate for
Mr.O.P.Saxena and Mr.S.Kumar, Advocates

versus

STATE & ORS.                                       ….. Respondents
Represented by:          Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Kapil Kumar, PS M.S.Park
Mr.S.K.S.Bhaduria, Advocate for R-4 and R-5

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

  1. In Crl.M.C.No.46/2013 Babita is aggrieved by the order absolving Ved Prakash and Hira Devi in proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014 her grievance is to anticipatory bail granted to respondents No.2 to 5 who are : Ram Prasad, his wife Laxmi Devi, Ved Prakash and his wife Hira Devi.
  2. The marriage between Babita @ Kavita and Manoj Kumar was solemnized on May 01, 2006 as per Hindu Rites and Customs in New Delhi and they proceeded to reside at the matrimonial home being House No.278, IInd Floor, Masjid Moth, New Delhi-110049.
  3. It is the case of Babita that at the time she married Manoj it was represented that Ram Prasad and Laxmi Devi are his parents and Ved Prakash and Smt.Hira Devi were introduced as the brother and sister-in-law respectively of Smt.Laxmi Devi. At the time of marriage, the complainant’s father gave various articles and a sum of `2 lakhs as part of stridhan to Ram Prasad and Laxmi Devi. That she was repeatedly beaten and abused by the respondents collectively for having failed to fulfill their demand for dowry in sum of `15 lakhs. Ved Prakash and Hira Devi would regularly visit the matrimonial home and humiliate and give beatings to the complainant for having failed to give birth to a son and for bringing inadequate dowry. She was subjected to beatings and mental torture at the hands of the respondents on May 09, 2007, July 21, 2008, September 18, 2011 and October 16, 2011. On August 20, 2008, she discovered that the respondents had concealed material information about their identities. She discovered that her husband was actually the adopted son of Sh.Ram Prasad, and Smt.Laxmi Devi and that Sh.Ved Prakash and Smt.Hira Devi, who were introduced as relatives of Smt. Laxmi Devi were the biological parents of her husband. On September 18, 2011, the respondents threatened to kill her and she was forced to leave her matrimonial home.
  4. Babita had filed a complaint No.80/12 dated December 24, 2011 before the Metropolitan Magistrate seeking reliefs of maintenance and damages for mental distress under Section 20(d) and Section 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. FIR No.100/2012 dated June 07, 2012 was also registered for offence punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act at P.S. Mansarovar Park, New Delhi on the complaint lodged by Babita.
  5. Pertaining to the complaint lodged under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and perusal of the allegations therein, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate deleted Sh.Ved Prakash and Smt.Hira Devi from the array of respondents vide order dated February 29, 2012 which order has been confirmed by the learned ASJ, Kakardoma Court vide order dated November 29, 2012 holding that there is no domestic relationship between the complainant and Sh.Ved Prakash and Smt.Hira Devi who were not even residing with the complainant in the matrimonial home. The allegations against Ved Prakash and Hira Devi have been found to be vague.
  6. In the decision reported as 2010 (3) CC Cases (HC) 543 Harbans Lal Malik Vs. Payal Malik in paras 9 to 20 it was observed as under:-
    • “9. The first issue arising in this case is whether an application under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act made by the respondent could have been entertained against all the respondents (petitioners herein) as arrayed in her application and whether the Court without discussing the domestic and legal relationship of different respondents with the petitioner, could have passed an order against the petitioners making them jointly and severally liable to pay maintenance of `50,000/-.
    • 10. Under Section 12, an „aggrieved person? can file an application to Magistrate against the respondents. The respondent has been defined under Section 2 (q). The definition reads as under: “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act: Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.
    • 11. It is apparent that in order to make a person as respondent in a petition under Section 12, there must exist a domestic relationship between the respondent and the aggrieved person. If there is no domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent, the Court of MM cannot pass an order against such a person under the Act. Domestic relationship is defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act and is as under:  “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; 
    • 12. It is apparent that domestic relationship arises between the two persons, who have lived together in a shared household and when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. The definition speaks of living together at any point of time however it does not speak of having relation at any point of time. Thus, if the domestic relationship continued and if the parties have lived together at any point of time in a shared household, the person can be a respondent but if the relationship does not continue and the relationship had been in the past and is not in the present, a person cannot be made respondent on the ground of a past relationship. The domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the respondent must be present and alive at the time when complaint under Domestic Violence Act is filed and if this relationship is not alive on the date when complaint is filed, the domestic relationship cannot be said to be there. The first respondent made by the wife in her complaint before the learned MM in this case was husband with whom the wife had lived under the same roof in a shared household till 22 nd August, 2008 in USA. She had not lived for last 7 ½ years with respondent no.1 in India. Respondent No.4 is Varun Malik who is brother of the husband. Under no circumstances it can be said that brother of husband, who was a major and independent, living separately from this husband and wife, had any kind of domestic relationship or moral or legal responsibility/obligations towards his brother?s wife. He had not lived in domestic relationship with Payal Malik at any point of time. Merely because a person is brother of the husband he cannot be arrayed as a respondent, nor does an MM gets authority over each and every relative of the husband, without going into the fact whether a domestic relationship or shared household was there between the aggrieved person and the respondent.
    • 13. The other respondent made in this case is Harbans Lal, father of Nagesh Malik. Nagesh Malik was living in USA he came to India to solemnize his marriage with an appropriate person. After marriage was solemnized he left India and went to USA. He lived all along with his wife in USA, birth of the child had taken place in USA. In all such cases where boy lives abroad and is settled abroad but comes to India for marriage, it is known to the girl as well as to the parents of the girl that they are choosing a groom who is not living with his parents but settled abroad. His links with the parents are only as with any other relative. He is not dependent on parents may be parents, if poor, take financial help from him.
    • 14. The girl and the parents of the girl knew it very well that they had selected a person for marriage with whom the girl was going to live abroad and the matrimonial home and the shared household was going to be outside India. This act of marrying a person settled abroad is a voluntary act of the girl. If she had not intended to enjoy the fat salary which boys working abroad get and the material facilities available abroad, she could have refused to marry him and settled for a boy having moderate salary within India. After having chosen a person living abroad, putting the responsibility, after failure of marriage, on the shoulders on his parents and making them criminals in the eyes of law because matrimonial ties between the two could not last for long, does not sound either legally correct or morally correct. How can the parents of a boy who is working abroad, living abroad, an adult, free to take his own decisions, be arrayed as criminals or respondents if the marriage between him and his wife failed due to any reason whatsoever after few years of marriage. If the sin committed by such parents of boy is that they facilitated the marriage, then this sin is equally committed by parents of the girl. If such marriage fails then parents of both bride and groom would have to share equal responsibility. The responsibility of parents of the groom cannot be more. Shelter of Indian culture and joint family cannot be taken to book only relatives of boy. A woman?s shared household in India in such cases is also her parents? house where she lived before marriage and not her in-laws? house where she did not live after marriage.
    • 15. When the shared household of husband and wife had not been in India for the last 08 years at any point of time, it is strange that the learned MM did not even think it proper to discuss as to how the father or the brother of the boy could be made respondents in proceedings of domestic violence, after husband and wife had not been able to pull on together. In the present case, Mr. Harbans Lal Malik petitioner could not be said to have shared household with the respondent since the respondent had not lived in his house as a family member, in a joint family of which Harbans Lal Malik was the head.
    • 16. It is important to consider as to what “family” is and what “joint family” is. As per Black?s Law Dictionary (VI Edition) “family” means a collective body of persons who live in one house under one head or management. Dictionary states that the meaning of word “family” necessarily depends on field of law in which word is used, but this is the most common meaning. “Family” also means a group of blood relatives and all the relations who descend from a common ancestor or who spring from a common root. However, for the purpose of domestic violence act where the object is to protect a woman from domestic violence, “family” has to be defined as a collective body of persons who live in one house under one head or management. In Chamber?s Dictionary (1994-95) again the “family” is defined as all those who live in one house i.e. parents, children servants; parents and their children. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993 ed.) “family” is defined as a group of persons living in one household including parents and their children, boarders, servants and such a group is a organizational unit of society.
    • 17. A Hindu Joint Family or Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) or a Joint Family is an extended family arrangement prevalent among Hindus of the Indian subcontinent, consisting of many generations living under the same roof. All the male members are blood relatives and all the women are either mothers, wives, unmarried daughters or widowed relatives, all bound by the common sapinda relationship. The joint family status being the result of birth, possession of joint cord that knits the members of the family together is not property but the relationship. The family is headed by a patriarch, usually the oldest male, who makes decisions on economic and social matters on behalf of the entire family. The patriarch?s wife generally exerts control over the kitchen, child rearing and minor religious practices. All money goes to the common pool and all property is held jointly.
    • The essential features of a joint family are:
      • ? Head of the family takes all decisions ? All members live under one roof ? Share the same kitchen ? Three generations living together (though often two or more brothers live ? together or father and son live together or all the descendants of male live together) Income and expenditure in a common pool – property held together.
      • ? A common place of worship ? All decisions are made by the male head of the family – patrilineal, ? patriarchal.
    • 18. Thus, in order to constitute a family and domestic relationship it is necessary that the persons who constitute domestic relationship must be living together in the same house under one head. If they are living separate then they are not a family but they are relatives related by blood or consanguinity to each other. Where parents live separate from their son like any other relative, the family of son cannot include his parents. The parents can be included in the family of son only when they are dependent upon the son and/or are living along with the son in the same house. But when they are not dependent upon the son and they are living separate, the parents shall constitute a separate family and son, his wife and children shall constitute a separate family. There can be no domestic relationship of the wife of son with the parents when the parents are not living along with the son and there can be no domestic relationship of a wife with the parents of her husband when son along with the wife is living abroad, maintaining a family there and children are born abroad. I, therefore consider that Harbans Lal Malik could not have been made as a respondent in a petition under Domestic Violence Act as he had no domestic relationship with aggrieved person even if this marriage between her and her husband was subsisting.
    • 19. I, also consider that the definition of “wife” as available under Section 125 Cr.P.C could not be imported into Domestic Violence Act. The Legislature was well aware of Section 125 Cr.P.C. and if Legislature intended, it would have defined “wife” as in Section 125 Cr.P.C in Domestic Violence Act as well. The purpose and object of Domestic Violence and provision under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is different. While Domestic Violence Act has been enacted by the Parliament to prevent acts of domestic violence on women living in a shared household. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to prevent vagrancy where wife is left high and dry without maintenance. Law gives a right to claim maintenance under Civil Law as well as Section 125 Cr.P.C. even to a divorced wife, but an act of domestic violence cannot be committed on a divorced wife, who is not living with her husband or family and is free to live wherever she wants. She has a right to claim maintenance and enforce other rights as per law. She has a right to claim custody of children as per law but denial of these rights do not amount to domestic violence. Domestic Violence is not perceived in this manner. The definition of “Domestic Violence” as given in Section 3 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and is under:
      • 3. Definition of domestic violence .- 
      • For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it – 
      • (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of 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, injures 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. 
      • Explanation I.-For the purposes of this section,-
      • (i) “physical abuse” means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force; 
      • (ii) “sexual abuse” includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman;
      • (iii) “verbal and emotional abuse” includes- 
      • (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and 
      • (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested.
      • (iv) “economic abuse” includes-
      • (a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance;
      • (b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and
      • (c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household.
    • 20. This definition pre supposes that the woman is living with the person who committed violence and domestic relationship is not dead buried or severed. This does not speak of past violence which a woman suffered before grant of divorce.”
  7. Judicial discipline warrants this Court to follow the law declared by a coordinate bench, and doing so I dismiss Crl.M.C.No.46/2013.
  8. I see no reason to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in FIR No.100/2012 to respondents No.2 to 5. The principles of cancelling a bail granted have been succinctly noted in the order impugned which is dated March 03, 2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Thus, Crl.M.C.No.2637/2014 is also dismissed.

    Crl.M.A.No.219/2013 in Crl.M.C.No.46/2013 Dismissed as infructuous.

    (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

    SEPTEMBER 09, 2016/mamta

Advertisements

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.

 

London wife files DV on Indian sis in law & looses completely !!

People who never had a shared household with the wife cannot be dragged into a DV / matrimonial case just for being relatives ! Delhi HC, Dec’15

Sister in law (husband’s sister) and her husband who live in India are dragged into a DV case by the wife who lived with her NRI hubby @ London !! She claims that they called over phone and intervened in her life !!

The court appreciates the facts and notices that “….Admittedly, prior to petitioner’s marriage with Dr.Anurag Gupta, they were living separate at their matrimonial home in Kolkota. After the marriage, the petitioner along with her husband lived in U.K…. …On perusal of the petition, it reveals that the respondents never lived with the petitioner in U.K. or at Patna and never had ‘shared household’ to constitute domestic relationship. “

Noticing that there is NO basis for charging the relatives, the Hon HC clearly orders “….The petitioner has alleged in the complaint that the respondents used to remain in touch on telephone with her and intervene in the family matters while she was in U.K. Simply, because the respondents are related to the petitioner’s husband, they cannot be dragged into matrimonial dispute between them in DV Act. The Trial Court order is based upon fair appraisal of the legal aspects …..”

Names of sister in law and her husband, already dropped by the Honourable MM court remain so !!

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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

DECIDED ON : DECEMBER 03, 2015

CRL.REV.P. 553/2015

SWATI MISHRA ….. Petitioner
Through : Mr.Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Advocate.

versus

LEENA GUPTA & ANR ….. Respondents
Through : None.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

(1) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 01.07.2015 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mahila Court) whereby names of respondents were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.

(2) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the Trial Court record. Admittedly, the petitioner was married to Dr.Anurag Gupta. She has filed petition under Section 12 of DV Act against him and her father-in-law (Sita Ram Prasad Gupta). Respondent No.1 is her elder sister-in-law and was married to respondent No.2. Admittedly, prior to petitioner’s marriage with Dr.Anurag Gupta, they were living separate at their matrimonial home in Kolkota. After the marriage, the petitioner along with her husband lived in U.K. It is stated that there is ancestral house of her husband at Patna and the respondents did not allow her to enter the ancestral house. On perusal of the petition, it reveals that the respondents never lived with the petitioner in U.K. or at Patna and never had ‘shared household’ to constitute domestic relationship. The petitioner has alleged in the complaint that the respondents used to remain in touch on telephone with her and intervene in the family matters while she was in U.K. Simply, because the respondents are related to the petitioner’s husband, they cannot be dragged into matrimonial dispute between them in DV Act. The Trial Court order is based upon fair appraisal of the legal aspects and needs no intervention. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

(3) The revision petition lacks merits and is dismissed in limini. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with the copy of the order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

DECEMBER 03, 2015

sa

*****************************disclaimer************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
**********************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
**********************************************************************