Sheela Shankar Dabhane And ... vs Shweta Shrikant Dabhane
2022 Latest Caselaw 376 Bom

                                                         1                                   35.APL.559-2021.odt




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

                 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 559 OF 2021
                                   ( Sau. Surekha Ambadas Isane
                                                Vs.
                                   Sau. Shweta Shrikant Dabhane )

Office Notes, Office Memoranda                           Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders     or    directions and
Registrar's orders


                                  Mr. A.V. Band, Advocate for the Applicant.
                                  Smt. S.P. Giratkar, Advocate for the Non-Applicant.



                                  CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 11th JANUARY, 2022.

Heard Mr. Band, learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Giratkar, learned counsel for the non-applicant.

2. The application seeks to quash the proceedings against the applicant, who has been arrayed as the non-applicant No. 3 in the proceedings filed by the non-applicant under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act.

3. It is the contention of Mr. Band, learned counsel for the applicant, that for the purpose of invoking the provision of the Domestic Violence Act, the requirement as contained in Section 2 (f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, (hereinafter to be referred as the "D.V. Act"), has to be satisfied. He submits, that considering the averments in 2 35.APL.559-2021.odt

the complaint and the nature of relationship alleged vis-a-vis the present applicant, the requirement of Section 2 (f) of the D.V. Act is not satisfied, and therefore, the complaint, insofar as, the present applicant is concerned, is not maintainable. He submits, that the applicant, has never resided in a shared household with the complainant at any point of time, as the residence of the applicant, though in the same city, was in a totally different locality for which the addresses enumerated in the complaint itself, according to him, are a demonstrable proof. He further submits, that the applicant is a distant relative of the husband of the complainant, on which ground also, the requirement of Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act, is not satisfied. He therefore submits, that the complaint, insofar as, the applicant is concerned being not maintainable, the proceedings initiated against the applicant needs to be quashed and set-aside, by invoking the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in the case of Ganesh S/o Badri Rathod and others Vs. Sau. Nikita w/o Ganesh Rathod, Criminal Application (APL) No.280/2021, decided on 27.07.2021, wherein after taking note of various judicial pronouncements it has been held, that if the allegations in the complaint do not spell out the satisfaction of the requirement of Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act, the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act would not be maintainable.

4.          Smt.    Giratkar,    learned    counsel      for    the
                   3                        35.APL.559-2021.odt

non-applicant submits, that though the applicant was not residing in the same house, however, considering the allegations made against her, she would be a proper and necessary party and would fall within the definition of a domestic relationship, as defined in Section 2 (f) of the D.V. Act, which reads as under:

"Section 2(f)."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;"

5. The very nature of the language used therein requires that to fall within the said definition, the basic requirement would be for two persons to live or have lived at any point of time together in a shared household. This would clearly indicate, that for attracting the said definition, the residence in a shared household, at some point of time together is a sine qua non, without which, it would be impermissible in law for the provision of D.V. Act to be invoked and applied. This position, has being succinctly considered by this Court in Ganesh Badri Rathod (Supra), in light of which, considering the allegation made in the complaint under the D.V. Act, it would be apparent, that the applicant who is the non-applicant No. 3 in the Domestic Violence proceedings, admittedly had never resided in the same household alongwith the non-applicant/complainant, at 4 35.APL.559-2021.odt

any point of time whatsoever.

6. Smt. Giratkar, learned counsel for the non-applicant, has been unable to point out any averment in the complaint, which would indicate the satisfaction of the requirement of Section 2 (f) of the D.V. Act. Since the complaint itself does not spell out the satisfaction of the requirement of Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act, the complaint in that regard cannot be permitted to proceed ahead against the present applicant, in view of which, the Criminal Case No. 19/2021, insofar as it relates to the applicant, is hereby quashed and the non- applicant, is directed to delete the applicant (original non-applicant No. 3) from the array of non-applicants in the Domestic Violence proceedings.

7. The application is accordingly allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs.

JUDGE SD. Bhimte

Signed By:SHRIKANT DAMODHAR BHIMTE

Signing Date:12.01.2022 10:52