Vimla Khare vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1371 MP

                                                        1
                           IN    THE     HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                              AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                           ON THE 24 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                       MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8301 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.    VIMLA KHARE W/O LATE JANARDAN PRASAD
                                KHARE, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                HOUSEWIFE R/O VILLAGE BIRSIINGHPUR HOUSE
                                NO. 137 WARD NO. 07, PAWAI DISTRICT PANNA
                                (M.P.)

                          2.    MITHLESH KHARE S/O LT. JANARDAN PRASAD
                                KHARE,    AGED   ABOUT    28 YEARS,   R/O
                                BIRSINGHPUR, PAWAI, DISTRICT-PANNA(M.P.),
                                AT PRESENTLY RENTED HOUSE OF ASHOK
                                GAUTAM MAHARAJ INDRA NAGAR, H.NO-148,
                                KATNI, DISTRICT-KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    PANKAJ KHARE S/O LT. JANARDAN PRASAD
                                KHARE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O PRESENTLY
                                AT HOUSE OF VIKAS JAIN, WARD NO 8, NEAR BUS
                                STAND, PAWAI, DISTRICT-PANNA (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          4.    SMT. LALI KHARE W/O SHRI ALANKAR KHARE,
                                AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O JHAMTULI, POLICE
                                STATION - BAMITHA, TEHSIL - RAJNAGAR,
                                DISTRICT - CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                               .....PETITIONERS
                          (BY SHRI R.P. MISHRA - ADVOCATE )

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S.
                                CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT- CHHATARPUR (M.P.)

                          2.    ABHILASHA SAXENA W/O RAGHVENDRA KHARE
                                R/O RENTED HOUSE OF LAXMI RAIKWAR,
                                CHAUBEY COLONY, CHHATARPUR DISTRICT-
                                CHHATARPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VAISHALI
AGRAWAL
Signing time: 1/28/2023
11:11:54 AM
                                                     2
                          (BY SHRI C.M. TIWARI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR                      THE
                          RESPONDENT/STATE) (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT NO.2)

                                This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                          following:
                                                                ORDER

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of Criminal proceedings in MJCR No.25/2020 pending before the JMFC, Chhatarpur filed on behalf of respondent no.2/wife of Raghvendra Khare under Section 12 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Facts of the case are that respondent no.2 was married with

Raghvendra Khare on 05.05.2018 as per Hindu Rites and Customs by virtue of this marriage, the parties were not having any issue. Respondent no.2 filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence against the present petitioners including her husband. The petitioner No.1 Vimla Khare is mother-in-law, petitioner No.2 Mithlesh Khare is the brother-in-law (Jeth), Petitioenr No.3 Pankaj Khare is the brother-in-law (Jeth) and petitioner No.4 Smt. Lali Khare is the sister-in-law (nanad) of the complainant. Complainant had filed the complaint due to cruelty, harassment on behalf of her husband including the petitioners. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below has failed to consider the facts that that respondent no.2 had no domestic relationship with the present petitioners and the petitioners are mother-in-law, brother-in-laws and sister-in-law of the complainant. It is further submitted that soon after the marriage, the complainant has never Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/28/2023 11:11:54 AM

lived with the parents in law and she has no domestic relations with the petitioners. Petitioners No.1 to 3 are living separately from the complainant and her husband after partition held between them on 05.01.2018 and the petitioner No.4 is the married sister-in-law (nanad) of the complainant is living at her matrimonial home. There is no contact between petitioners and complainant. The complainant has lodged an FIR bearing Crime No. 82/2020 under Sections 498-A, 323/34 of IPC and Section 3 read with 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act only against her husband. Complainant is living separately after her marriage by putting undue pressure on her husband in a rented house at Chhatarpur. Hence, the learned trial Court has failed to consider the aspect of the matter and taken the cognizance contrary to the settled proportions of law and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court and the same is therefore liable to be quashed.

Learned Panel Lawyer for respondent No.1 has opposed the prayer and supported the cognizance taken by the learned Court below. It is also submitted that soon after the marriage of the complainant, her husband alongwith present petitioners committed domestic violence upon the complainant. Hence, at the this stage, no case for interference is made out

and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioner has place reliance over the judgment of apex Court passed in the case of Shyamlal Devda and Others vs. Parimala (2020) 3 SCC 14 and Ashish Dixit and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another (2013) 4 SCC 176 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/28/2023 11:11:54 AM

Court has held that except the husband and parents-in-law, the respondent wife should not have been allowed impleadment of sundry persons.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Undisputedly, respondent no.2 is legally wedded wife of Raghvendra Khare. Petitioner No.1 Vimla Khare is mother-in-law, petitioner No.2 Mithlesh Khare is the brother-in-law (Jeth), Petitioenr No.3 Pankaj Khare is the brother-in-law (Jeth) and petitioner No.4 Smt. Lali Khare is the sister-in-law (nanad) of respondent No.2. The petitioner No.4 is sister of the husband of respondent no.2 and living at her matrimonial house prior to the marriage of the respondent no.2.

On bare perusal of the complaint, it is crystal clear that neither any details of domestic violence caused by the petitioners is mentioned nor any specific role of the petitioners is mentioned by respondent no.2.

Domestic relationship is defined under Section 2(f) which reads as under:

"Domestic Relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in 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 joint family."

In view of the aforesaid, the provisions of Domestic Violence Act shall take place only when the person lived together in shared household, Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/28/2023 11:11:54 AM

when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as joint family.

In the case of Vijay Verma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., reported in 2010 (118) DRJ 520, it is held as under:

5 . Filing of a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by the petitioner taking shelter of domestic relationship and domestic violence needs to be considered so that this Act is not misused to settle property disputes. Domestic relationship is defined under the Act in Section 2(f) as under:

"(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."

6. A perusal of this provision makes it clear that domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved person had lived together with the respondent in a shared household. This living together can be either soon before filing of petition or 'at any point of time'. The problem arises with the meaning of phrase "at any point of time". Does that mean that living together at any stage in the past would Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/28/2023 11:11:54 AM

give right to a person to become aggrieved person to claim domestic relationship? I consider that "at any point of time" under the Act only means where an aggrieved person has been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right but for some reason the aggrieved person has to leave the house temporarily and when she returns, she is not allowed to enjoy her right to live in the property. However, "at any point of time" cannot be defined as "at any point of time in the past" whether the right to live survives or not. For example if there is a joint family where father has several sons with daughters- in-law living in a house and ultimately sons, one by one or together, decide that they should live separate with their own families and they establish separate household and start living with their respective families separately at different places;

can it be said that wife of each of the sons can claim a right to live in the house of father-in-law because at one point of time she along with her husband had lived in the shared household. If this meaning is given to the shared household then the whole purpose of Domestic Violence Act shall stand defeated. Where a family member leaves the shared household to establish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on the basis of domestic relationship. Domestic relationship

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/28/2023 11:11:54 AM

comes to an end once the son along with his family moved out of the joint family and established his own household or when a daughter gets married and establishes her own household with her husband. Such son, daughter, daughter-in- law, son-in-law, if they have any right in the property say because of coparcenary or because of inheritance, such right can be claimed by an independent civil suit and an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cannot be filed by a person who has established his separate household and ceased to have a domestic relationship. Domestic relationship continues so long as the parties live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared household. Only a compelled or temporarily going out by aggrieved person shall fall in phrase 'at any point of time', say, wife has gone to her parents house or to a relative or some other female member has gone to live with her some relative, and, all her articles and belongings remain within the same household and she has not left the household permanently, the domestic relationship continues. However, where the living together has been given up and a separate (Gurmukhdas Salwani and others Vs. Smt. Mitali Salwani) household is established and belongings are removed, domestic relationship comes to an end and a relationship of being relatives of each other survives. This is very normal in families that a person

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/28/2023 11:11:54 AM

whether, a male or a female attains self sufficiency after education or otherwise and takes a job lives in some other city or country, enjoys life there, settles home there. He cannot be said to have domestic relationship with the persons whom he left behind. His relationship that of a brother and sister, father and son, father and daughter, father and daughter-in-law etc survives but the domestic relationship of living in a joint household would not survive & comes to an end.

7. This meaning of domestic relationship has sense when we come to definition of domestic violence and the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act is to give remedy to the aggrieved persons against domestic violence. The domestic violence can take place only when one is living in shared household with the respondents. The acts of abuses, emotional or economic, physical or sexual, verbal or nonverbal if committed when one is living in the same shared household constitute domestic violence. However, such acts of violence can be committed even otherwise also when one is living separate. When such acts of violence take place when one is living separate, these may be punishable under different provisions of IPC or other penal laws, but, they cannot be covered under Domestic Violence Act. One has to make distinction between violence committed on a person living

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/28/2023 11:11:54 AM

separate in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in the shared household. Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can constitute domestic violence. A person may be threatening another person 100 miles away on telephone or by messages etc. This may amount to an offence under IPC, but, this cannot amount to domestic violence. Similarly, emotional blackmail, economic abuse and physical abuse can take place even when persons are living miles away. Such abuses are not covered under Domestic Violence Act but they are liable to be punished under Penal laws. Domestic Violence is a violence which is committed when parties are in domestic relationship, sharing same household and sharing all the household goods with an opportunity to commit violence.

In the case in hand, respondent no.2 was living separately from the petitioners. She was not staying with petitioners in a shared household and she was living separately at Chhatarpur since August, 2018 and petitioners No. 1 to 3 are living in village Pawai and petitioner No.4 is living in Jhamtuli Tehsil Rajnagar district Chhatarpur, therefore, no domestic relationship exists between them, hence, in view of the aforesaid, the domestic relations with the petitioners is not established with respondent no.2. The learned Court below has erred in not considering the each and every facts and circumstances of the case and the facts so mentioned by the respondent in her application while taking the cognizance. Hence, in the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/28/2023 11:11:54 AM

considered opinion of this Court, the petition is liable to be allowed and the order impugned is set aside.

The entire proceedings pending before the JMFC, Chhatarpur in MJCR No.25/2020 filed on behalf of respondent no.2 qua the petitioners is set aside.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court below concerned for necessary information and action.

Resultantly, MCRC stands allowed and disposed off. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE vai

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VAISHALI AGRAWAL Signing time: 1/28/2023 11:11:54 AM