Bombay High Court
Mangesh S/O Manikrao Wadandre And ... vs Smt. Ankita Shravan Bansure on 21 July, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:7059
1 66.APL.513-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 513 OF 2024
1. Mangesh S/o Manikrao Wadandre,
Aged : 40 Yrs., Occ. Service,
2. Pushpalata W/o Mangesh Rao
Wadandre,
Aged : 35 yrs, Occ. Service.
Both Petitioner No. 1 and 2 R/o 50/2,
Near Old Masjit Sindhi Railway Tehsil
Seloo, VTC Sindi Railway,
District Wardha-442. APPLICANTS
Versus
Smt. Ankita Shravan Bansur,
Age : 28 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. C/o. Ramesh Ramrao Nasre, Tara
Sawanga At Ashti District Wardha,
442202. NON-APPLICANT
-----------------------------------------------
Mr. S.I. Khan, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. M.V. Rai, Advocate for the Non-applicant.
-----------------------------------------------
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.
DATED : 21st JULY, 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
2 66.APL.513-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. By this Application the Applicants are seeking to
quash and set aside the Domestic Violence proceeding bearing
No. PWDVA APP-29/2020 pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ashti District Wardha against the
Petitioner who are the original Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the
Domestic Violence proceedings (for short "D.V.").
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Respondent No. 3 is the husband of the
Respondent No.4 who is the sister-in-law of the present Non-
applicant Dr. Shravan Rajaramji Banasure is the husband of the
present Non-applicant. The marriage of the Non-applicant and
brother of the Applicant No.2 was performed on 28.06.2020 at
Wardha. After marriage she resumed the cohabitation at the
house of her husband and she stayed there till September 2020
i.e., hardly for one month. It is alleged that after marriage she
was ill-treated by her husband, mother-in-law as well as the
3 66.APL.513-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
present Applicants. As per the allegations due to instigation at
the hands of the present Applicants her husband was not
keeping physical relationship with her and also harassing her.
On the basis of the said Application filed by the Non-applicant
before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ashti. The Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Ashti has issued summons to the present
Applicants. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the
present Petition is filed by them for quashing of the D.V.
proceedings on the ground that the Applicants never resided
alongwith the respondent and her husband, they were not with
the respondent in a domestic relationship and the general
allegations are levelled against them. On that ground the
Applicants are seeking quashment of the proceedings.
5. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants who
reiterated the said contentions and submitted that, on going
through the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section
2(f) of the D.V. Act, 2005 which 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
4 66.APL.513-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
a joint family".
6. Thus, the present Applicants are never resided
alongwith the present Non-applicant in either in a domestic
relationship or in a shared household. Moreover, the allegations
levelled against them are general in nature, and therefore, the
proceedings against them to be quashed.
7. The learned Counsel for the Non-applicant strongly
opposed for the same and invited my attention towards the
recitals of the Application and submitted that, wherein it is
specifically mentioned that she was harassed at the hands of the
present Applicants after marriage when she resumed the
cohabitation. He further submitted that, the complaint under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, is also registered
against the present Applicants which is still pending. In view of
that, the Application being devoid of merits is liable to be
dismissed.
8. On hearing both the sides and on perusal of the
record it reveals that, the relationship is not in dispute. It is also
not in dispute that the marriage between the Non-applicant and
her husband Shravan Rajaramji Banasure was performed on
5 66.APL.513-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
28.06.2020. Thereafter she resumed the cohabitation at the
house of her husband. There is no dispute that the present
Applicant No.2 is the sister of her husband and the Applicant
No.1 is the husband of the Applicant No.2. It is also undisputed
that, the marriage of the Applicants was performed prior to
the marriage of the present Non-applicant and she is residing at
Sindhi Railway Selu, District Wardha. Thus, it is apparent that
the Applicants are not residing with the Non-applicant in her
house alongwith her.
9. For consideration of the issues noted above, it would
be appropriate to refer the definition of the domestic
relationship and shared household under Sections 2(f) and
2(s)of the D.V. Act, 2005 reads as under:
"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.
2(s) "shared household" means a household where the
person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a
domestic relationship either singly or along with the
respondent and includes such a household whether owned
or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the
respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in
respect of which either the aggrieved person or the
respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title,
6 66.APL.513-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
interest or equity and includes such a household which
may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a
member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the
aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the
shared household."
10. A plain reading of the above provisions reveals that
for being arrayed in a domestic relationship means the
prominence while construing whether the party is an aggrieved
person and as to whether the other party can be arrayed as
Respondent in D.V. Application. The sine qua non for domestic
relationship is living together either in the present or in the past
in a shared household as defined under Section 2(s) of D.V. Act.
11. The facts of the instant case makes it evident that
the Applicants and her husband never resided together in the
shared household i.e. the matrimonial house of the present Non-
applicant at Ballarpur, District Chandrapur. The recitals of the
compliant nowhere shows that at any point of time after the
marriage of the Non-applicant with the brother of the Applicant
No.2, the Applicants resided together alongwith them in the
shared household. Thus, considering the fact that the present
Applicants never resided alongwith the Non-applicant in a share
household or they were never with the Non-applicant in the
7 66.APL.513-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
domestic relationship and the nature of the allegation is also of
a general nature. No case is made out against the present
Applicants as far as the domestic violence at their hands is
concerned.
12. Coming to the pleadings in the Application it is
pleaded by the Non-applicant that she was harassed at the
hands of her husband on the instigation of present Applicants.
Admittedly, general allegations are levelled against them, no
individual act or certain incidents are narrated by the Non-
applicant as far as the harassment at the hands of the present
Applicants are concerned. The only pleading is that on the
instigation of the present Applicants her husband was not
keeping physical relationship with her was harassment at the
hands of the present Applicants. Except that, there are no
instances narrated by the Non-applicant in her application.
Thus, the Applicants who are included as a Respondent Nos. 3
and 4 in the original Petition merely because they are related to
the husband of the Non-applicant. Thus, permitting the Non-
applicant to include the married sister-in-law and her husband
would be a share abuse of process of law that merely they
sometime visited their parental house and stayed there, is not
8 66.APL.513-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
sufficient to state that they were in a domestic relationship with
the Non-applicant and the Non-applicant was subjected for the
harassment at their hands. There were no subsisting
relationship between the Applicants and the Non-applicant, and
therefore, the Applicants could not have been arraigned as
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in D.V. proceedings. Mere visits of the
Applicants to the shared household being devoid of any
permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute
residence in shared household. Even otherwise, considering the
pleadings in the Application read with the reliefs there is no
case of domestic violence against the present Applicants. In view
of that, the Application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following order.
13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
i. The Application is allowed.
ii. The Domestic Violence proceeding bearing No.
PWDVA APP-29/2020 is hereby quashed and set
aside.
9 66.APL.513-2024.JUDGMENT.odt
14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
15. Pending application/s, if any, shall stand disposed of
accordingly.
( URMILA JOSHI PHALKE, J.)
S.D.Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/07/2025 10:19:12
