Sanket S/O. Ravindra Dhonge And ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10076 Bom

                                                                                 apl166.19 (j).odt
                                                   1

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                     CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 166/2019

     APPLICANT :               1. Sanket S/o Ravindra Dhonge,
                                  aged about 26 years, Occ. Service,

                               2. Ravindra s/o Doma Dhonge,
                                  aged about 50 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

                               3. Sau. Usha w/o Ravindra Dhonge,
                                  aged about 45 years, Occ. Service,

                                 Nos. 1 to 3 are R/o. Kondasawali, Post
                                 Navegaon Khairi, Tah. Parshioni, District -
                                 Nagpur.

                                             ...VERSUS...

 NON-APPLICANTS:                 1. State of Maharashtra,
                                    through Police Station Officer,
                                    Police Station Umred, Tah. Umred,
                                    District - Nagpur.

                                 2. Sau. Punam Ashutosh Dhonge,
                                    aged : 24 years, Occ. Household,

                                 3. Adwait s/o Ashutosh Dhonge,
                                    aged : 1 years, being minor through
                                    natural guardian mother non-applicantNo.2
                                    Both R/o. C/o. Uttam Dhore,
                                    Waigaon Ghoturli, Umred, Tah. Umred,
                                    District - Nagpur.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Shri R.M.Patwardhan, Advocate for applicants
                       Shri S.A.Ashirgade, APP for non-applicant No. 1 - State
     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2021                                ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2021 05:36:06 :::
                                                                       apl166.19 (j).odt
                                           2

                                    CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.

DATE : 02/08/2021.

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

Admit.

Learned APP appearing on behalf of non-applicant No.1

- State waives notice.

2] Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

learned APP for non-applicant No.1-State. Non-applicant Nos. 2

and 3 were duly served, but they have chosen not to appear before

this Court. On 15.07.2021, this Court had adjourned the present

application to give a last chance to non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 to

appear before this Court.

3] Today, when the application is called out for hearing,

again there is no representation on behalf of non-applicant Nos. 2

& 3. In this situation, the application was taken up for final hearing.

4] Mr. Patwardhan, the learned counsel appearing for the

applicant submitted that the application/complaint filed by

non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 before the Magistrate under the

apl166.19 (j).odt

provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2003, (hereinafter referred to as "DV Act"), is not maintainable

against the applicants. It is pointed out that Applicant No.1 is

bother-in-law, Applicant No. 2 is father-in-law and applicant No. 3 is

mother-in-law of non-applicant No.2. The complaint before the

Magistrate has been filed against the husband of non-applicant No.2

and the applicants before this Courtb. By inviting attention to the

contents of the said complaint dated 17.11.2018, filed under

Sections 11, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the DV Act, the learned counsel

for the applicants highlighted that all the allegations have been

made against the husband and the specific prayers made in the

application also pertain to the husband. It is emphasized that

nowhere in the complaint, is it stated that applicants before this

Court have lived in the same house with non-applicant No. 2 and

her husband. The learned counsel for the applicant invited

attention of this Court to various provisions of the DV Act and

submitted that the applicants cannot be said to be having a domestic

relationship with non-applicant No.2 and that, therefore, the

complaint deserves to be quashed at this stage itself. Reliance is

placed on the judgment of this Court in case of Mr. Prabhakar

apl166.19 (j).odt

Mohite & Anr vrs. The State of Maharashtra and anr reported in

2018 ALL MR (Cri) 4508.

5] Mr. Ashirgade, learned APP has also referred to the

contents of the complaint filed by non-applicant No.2 and it is stated

that the allegations appeared to be made against the husband and

there is no averment regarding the applicants having shared a

household with non-applicant No.2. As noted above,

non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3 have chosen not be appear before this

Court, despite being served.

6] Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and

the learned APP, for arriving at a conclusion as to whether the

application filed by non-applicant Nos. 2 and 3, under the provisions

of DV Act, deserves to be quashed insofar as the applicants are

concerned, it is necessary to refer to the definitions of relevant

terms in the DV Act. Section 2(f) defines "Domestic Relationship";

Section 2(g) defines "Domestic Violence"; Section 2(q) defines

"Respondent" and Section 2(s) defines "Shared Household".

apl166.19 (j).odt

7] A perusal of the aforesaid terms, as defined under DV

Act, would show that the definitions of "Domestic Relationship" and

"Shared Household" are inter-related and that a person can be said

to have a domestic relationship with the aggrieved woman, if that

person lives or at any stage has lived in a shared household with the

aggrieved woman. The definition of "respondent" also specifically

states that it has to be a person who has been in a domestic

relationship with the aggrieved woman.

8] Therefore, to answer the said definitions, it would be

necessary that the applicants before this Court fall within the

definition of "respondent", in the backdrop of the definitions of

"domestic relationship" and "shared household", as given in the DV

Act. It is only then that they can be alleged to have committed

domestic violence as defined in Section 2(g) read with Section 3 of

the DV Act.

9] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Satish Chander

Ahuja vrs. Snehal Ahuja, reported in (2021) 1 SCC 414, has

specifically held in paragraph No. 68 as follows.

apl166.19 (j).odt

"68. The words "lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship" have to be given its normal and purposeful meaning. The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared household or not. As noted above, 2005 Act has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act. Section 2(s) read with Section 17 and 19 of 2005 Act grants an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence under the shared household irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same or not."

10] In the case of Prabhakar Mohite and anr vrs. State of

Maharashtra and anr (supra), this Court has referred to the

aforementioned definitions under the DV Act and found that unless

the persons arrayed as respondents in a complaint filed under the

provisions of the DV Act, can be said to be in a domestic relationship

with the aggrieved person, such a complaint cannot proceed further

against the respondents.

11] Applying the provisions of law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and this Court in the context of provisions of DV Act,

it needs to be examined whether, in the facts and circumstances of

apl166.19 (j).odt

the present case, it can be said that the complaint deserves to be

maintained against the applicants before this Court.

12] Applicant No.1 is brother-in-law, applicant No. 2 is

father-in-law and applicant No. 3 is mother-in-law of non-applicant

No.2. A perusal of the complaint shows that non-applicant No.2 has

not stated at any place in the said complaint that the said applicants

live or have lived with non-applicant No.2 at any stage in a shared

household. The prayer clauses in the complaint filed by non-

applicant Nos. 2 and 3, all pertain to reliefs sought only against the

husband and none of the prayers pertain to any other relief sought

against the applicants before this Court. Therefore, the mandatory

requirement of the persons arrayed as respondents having a

domestic relationship, is not satisfied on the face of it in the present

case. Once it is found that the applicants before this Court could not

have been arrayed as respondents by non-applicant No.2 herein, in

the complaint filed under the provisions of DV Act, it becomes clear

that the proceedings pending before the Magistrate do not deserve

to continue as against the applicants herein.

apl166.19 (j).odt

13] In view of the above, the application is allowed. The

complaint filed by non-applicant No.2 under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20

and 21 of the DV Act, bearing Misc. Criminal Case No. 40/2018,

pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umred,

stands quashed as against the applicants before this Court.

14] It is made clear that the observations made in the

present judgment will not come in the way of non-applicant No.2 in

airing her grievance against the applicants herein for any other

reliefs, in accordance with law.

15] Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to

costs.

JUDGE

Rvjalit