Bombay High Court
Renuka Hemant Chavan And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:30747
1 2 WP 2050-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
2 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2050 OF 2024
1. Renuka Hemant Chavan
Age : 67 years, Occ. : Household,
2. Hemant Ramappa @ Rayappa Chavan
Age : 75 years, Occ. : Nil,
3. Vijay Hemant Chavan
Age : 44 years, Occ. : Doctor,
All R/o. : CCB-59, Vaibhavnagar, Belgaum,
Tq. Hukeri, Dist. Belgaum (Karnataka State) PETITIONERS
(Ori. Accused)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
2. Mrs. Shital Mahesh Chavan
Age : 40 years, Occ. : Doctor,
3. Ashni Mahesh Chavan
Age : 7 years, Occ. : Student,
(minor, under guardian of respondent No.2)
4. Aahaann Mahesh Chavan
Age : 12 years, Occ. : Student,
(minor, under guardian of respondent No.2) RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Complainant)
...
Mr. Satej S. Jadhav - Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. V.M. Chate - APP for Respondent No.1, State
Mr. Chaitanya C. Deshpande - Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4
...
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 10.11.2025
2 2 WP 2050-2024.odt
PER COURT :
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners after arguing for some time, on
instructions, does not press the petition to the extent of petitioner Nos.1
and 2.
2. The petitioner No.3 has approached this Court raising an exception
to the proceeding bearing P.W.D.V.A. No.180 of 2021 presented by
respondent Nos.2 to 4 under Section 12 along with various reliefs
claimed under the relevant provisions of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter "D.V. Act" for short) before the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad.
3. The marriage of brother-in-law of petitioner No.3 with respondent
No.2 was solemnized on 19.07.2005. As per assertions in the complaint
initially the respondent No.2 was treated well by her husband and
present petitioner No.3. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 was subjected to
ill-treatement and domestic violence on trivial issues and eventually was
driven out of the matrimonial house. Resultantly, the respondent No.2
presented the complaint against the petitioners and her husband.
4. It is submitted that the allegations against the present petitioner
No.3 are sweeping and omnibus in nature. Nonetheless, there is no
specific role attributed. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
5. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 opposed the petition,
3 2 WP 2050-2024.odt
submitting that the petitioner No.3 has subjected the respondents to
domestic violence and that there are allegations as against him for
participation in subjecting the complainant to such violence. Hence,
prayed for rejection of the petition.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused
the material on record, the fact remains that except for the sweeping and
omnibus allegations made in the present complaint, no specific role has
been attributed to petitioner No.3, who is brother-in-law of respondent
No.2 and is residing independently. The tendency of implicating relatives
in matrimonial disputes, subjecting them to unnecessary hardship vis-a-
vis the trials and tribulations of frivolous prosecutions, is gaining ground,
which amounts to a sheer abuse of the process of law.
7. Perusal of the record and the complaint in detail indicates that the
allegations are confined only against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the
mother-in-law, father-in-law and husband of respondent No.2. In
absence of specific allegations against present petitioner No.3, the
continuance of the proceedings would not be justified. In support of these
submissions, heavy reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Geddam Jhansi and Anr. Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. ,
[arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.9556 of 2022 and
428 of 2024], particularly paragraphs 29 and 32 are reproduced as
under:
4 2 WP 2050-2024.odt
29. As far as the allegation of the complainant of being thrown
out of her matrimonial house on 17.10.2020 is concerned, she
made the specific allegation only against her husband and she did
not attribute any role of the appellants except for making a geneal
allegation of harassing her physically and mentally without
specifying the actual role of the appellants.
32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial
disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed
alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a
tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not
come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators
to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view cannot
by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts
attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and
relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate
the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such
domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality.
8. The initiation of criminal process is a serious matter with penal
consequences involving coercive measures and therefore, it can be
permitted only when specific acts constituting offences punishable under
the relevant provisions are alleged or attributed to the accused persons.
With the same vigour, criminalising domestic disputes without specific
allegations and credible material to support the same has disastrous
consequences for the institution of family, which is premised on the cord
of love, affection, cordiality and mutual trust. The institution of family
constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships are guided
5 2 WP 2050-2024.odt
by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These
relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of
respect, commitment and emotional investment compared to other social
or professional associations.
9. Thus, preservation of family relationships has always been
emphasised in our society. As such, when family relationships are sought
to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings, thereby rupturing
the family bond, the Court should be circumspect and judicious and
should allow invocation of the criminal process, only when there are
specific allegations, supported by material, which clearly constitute the
criminal offences alleged.
10. The matrimonial relationships, which are founded on the strength
of cordiality and trust, turn sour to the extent of one partner hurling
allegations of domestic violence and harassment against the other, at the
spur of the moment. Such acrimonious relationships usually evolve over a
period of time and are the culmination of a series of acts that transform
an otherwise amicable relationship into a fractured one. In such cases
involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would
normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be
spelt out by the complainant against the perpetrators in the criminal
proceedings sought to be initiated. Thus, mere general allegations of
harassment without pointing out the specific role against such
6 2 WP 2050-2024.odt
perpetrators would not suffice, so as to initiate the proceedings and
undergo the trial and tribulations of such false case.
11. As recorded by this Court that complaint does not specify and
specific allegations except sweeping and general assertion as against
present petitioner No.3. As such, continuance of proceeding would result
into sheer abuse of process of law. Pertinently, the brother-in-law of
respondent No.2 i.e. petitioner No.3 is not residing with petitioner Nos.1
and 2 and husband of respondent No.2. As such, petitioner No.3 had no
occasion to reside in a shared household with respondent No.2 and the
same sufficiently establishes the false implication.
12. Resultantly, I am of the considered view that the cases relating to
domestic violence, the complaint and the allegations therein must be
specific as against each and every member of the family having
accusation of such offences and are sought to be prosecuted. Thus, in
absence of specific allegations, the continuance of proceedings against
the petitioner No.3 would amount to sheer abuse of process of law.
13. Thus, the record reflects that there are no specific allegations
against the present petitioners, as observed hereinabove, and therefore,
further proceedings in the Domestic Violence proceedings against them
would not be sustainable.
14. In order to achieve the ends of justice, the impugned complaint
7 2 WP 2050-2024.odt
presented under the Domestic Violence Act deserves to be quashed and
set aside to the extent of the petitioner No. 3 only. Hence, the following
order :
ORDER
(a) The petition is partly allowed.
(b) The proceeding bearing P.W.D.V.A. No.180 of 2021 for
the offences punishable under Section 12 with reliefs
claimed under Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, pending before the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad is quashed and set
aside, to the extent of petitioner No. 3 only.
(c) Accordingly, the Criminal Writ Petition is disposed of.
[ SACHIN S. DESHMUKH ]
JUDGE
Pooja Kale/
