Recently, the single judge bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the courts, while issuing notice under Sector 12 of the Domestic Violence Act must look that the relatives of the husband even living or lived with the aggrieved person in a shared household.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed in order to quash the case Smrita Srivastava vs. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava and others under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
Contentions of the Applicant
The Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that applicants 2 to 6 have been living separately with their family at different places which is clear from their addresses. Therefore, they are not in a domestic relationship with the opposite party no. 2. Therefore, applicants nos. 2 to 6 will not come within the definition of respondents as per Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act and they have been falsely implicated in the impugned proceeding. It was furthermore submitted that proceedings against the mother-in-law are also erroneous.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that Applicant no. 2 to 6 have been living separately and as per Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, they cannot be termed as respondents as they have not been residing in a shared household with the opposite party no. 2.
The court furthermore observed that Court came across a number of cases where just to harass the family of the husband or the person in a domestic relationship, the aggrieved party used to implicate the relatives of the other side who are not even living or lived with the aggrieved person in a shared household and they have been residing at separate places.Therefore, the courts below while issuing notice under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act must look into this fact from the perusal of the application filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act along with other available records including the report of the Protection Officer, if available on record.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Hiral P. Harsora and Others vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Others.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that the proceedings against applicant nos.2 to 6 is malicious, and deserves to be quashed. Furthermore, the court holds that no case of quashing is made out against the mother-in-law.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court partly allowed the present application.
Case Title: Krishnawati Devi V. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 14626 of 2019
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
Advocate for the Applicant: Om Prakash Shukla
Picture Source :
