Madras High Court
Dr. Arunagiri vs Mrs Mahalakshmi on 28 May, 2025
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
CRP(PD).No.221 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 27.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.05.2025
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
CRP.(PD).No.221 of 2025
and
CMP.No.1478 of 2025
1. Dr. Arunagiri
2.Mrs.Saroja ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Mrs Mahalakshmi
2.G.Shakthi (minor)
3.G.Saradha (minor)
4.Mr.Girish Arunagiri
(Respondents 2 and 3 are represented by their father and guardian
Mr.Girish Arunagiri.)
... Respondents
Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India that the order made in CMP.No.20868 of 2021 (CNR
No. TNCBOA-026194-2021) in D.V.A No.17 of 2021 dated 23.09.2024
on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Domestic Violence Act cases,
Coimbatore may kindly be set aside by allowing this Civil Revision
Petition.
1/44
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
CRP(PD).No.221 of 2025
For Petitioner : M/s.Jothi Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Vinod
For Respondent : M/s.I.Abrar Md. Abdullah for R.1.
ORDER
By a revision challenging the dismissal of an application seeking
to delete/strike off the names of the revision petitioners/ respondents 2
and 3 in DVA.No.17 of 2021, the they are before this Court.
2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition which is the
subject matter of this Civil Revision runs to over 129 pages. The long
and short of the petitioner’s case is that no case of domestic violence
has been made out against them and therefore they have to be struck
off from the array of parties in the Domestic Violence Petition, in
DVA.No.17/2021 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate
Coimbatore.
Facts of the Case:-
3. A brief resume of the facts as set out in the Domestic
Violence Petition which has given rise to this Civil Revision Petition
are herein below set out and the parties are referred to in the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
ranking as before the Trial Court. Therefore, the Revision Petitioners,
the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the 1st petitioner, are referred
to as respondents 2 and 3 and the respondents 1 to 3 herein are
referred to as petitioners 1 to 3 and the 4 respondent herein, the
husband of the 1st petitioner as the 1st respondent. Petitioners 2 and 3
are the daughters of the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent.
4. The marriage of the 1st respondent and the 1st petitioner took
place on 15.01.2007 at Coimbatore as per Hindu Rites and Customs.
The marriage was an arranged one. At the time of the marriage both
the 1st petitioner as well as the 1st respondent were Indian Citizens. It
is the contention of the 1st petitioner that she has completed her
M.C.A. and was employed as a Developer with M/s. Snailworks at the
time of her marriage. Likewise, the 1st respondent had an M.S. degree
in Industrial Engineering. It is the case of the 1st petitioner that the
expenses for the marriage and reception were exclusively borne by the
1st petitioner’s family. In addition, they also had to bear the expenses
incurred for the stay of the respondents and their people. The 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
petitioner would contend that as per tradition she had been given 200
sovereigns of gold and 5 Kg of silver by her parents. That apart, her
parents had also given 10 sovereign of gold including Thali and
Omega watch to the 1st respondent.
5. It is her contention that till the marriage got registered, the 1st
respondent and his family members were on their best behavior and
thereafter they showed their true colours by demanding dowry. She
would submit that both herself and the 1st respondent had left for the
US on 29.01.2007 and initially there was harmony and happiness
amongst themselves but however the same was short lived as the 1st
respondent was an alcoholic and used to come home drunk. The 1st
petitioner did not question these activities in the fond hope that the 1 st
respondent would reform in due course of time. However, that was not
to happen.
6. The 1st petitioner’s contention is that the 3rd respondent
(mother of the 1st respondent and the 1st petitioner’s mother-in-law)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
was constantly in touch with the 1st respondent over phone and was
deliberately misguiding him not to spend money on her and to send all
his earnings to respondents 2 and 3. The 1st petitioner would contend
that the 1st respondent was affectionate towards her but however on
account of the ill advice of respondents 2 and 3, the 1st respondent had
compelled the 1st petitioner and forcibly taken custody of all her
jewels, cash and other belongings. The 1st petitioner had put up with
these acts forseeing a reformation on the part of the 1st respondent.
The 1st petitioner was also put to a great deal of mental harassment by
respondents 2 and 3 in as much as they would have a Skype call with
the 1st respondent every month and would question the 1st petitioner
as to why she was not conceiving. In fact, these calls would last for
over 2 hours. While respondents 2 and 3 were harassing the 1st
petitioner in this fashion, the 1st respondent remained silent without
questioning his parents.
7. Meanwhile, the 1st petitioner had conceived the 1st child and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
on 15.01.2009 a healthy baby girl named, Shakthi (the 2nd petitioner)
was born. The 1st petitioner would submit that when the 1st
respondent had visited her parental house for seeing her and the baby,
he had demanded dowry from her parents for buying a house in his
name in the US. Left with no choice, the 1st petitioner’s father had
given Rs.5,00,000/- to the 1st respondent for the down payment of the
flat and it is only thereafter that the respondents had permitted the 1st
petitioner and her daughter to travel to the US. After their return to the
US, the 1st respondent’s attitude had totally changed and he became
more abusive.
8. Once again, in the year 2017, the 1st petitioner had conceived
her second child. She was asked to abort the child as the respondents
came to know that the baby was a girl. However, the 1st petitioner had
decided to keep her child. On 07.09.2017, the 1st petitioner gave birth
to her second girl child by name Sharadha (the 3rd petitioner). It is
also the case of the 1st petitioner that in the month of June 2020 she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
and the 2nd petitioner at the instance of the 1st respondent, had
obtained permanent citizenship of the United States of America. The
1st petitioner would submit that harassment increased thereafter.
Paragraph nos.7, 8 and 9 of the Domestic Violence Petition contain
the allegations against the 1st respondent alone.
9. The 1st petitioner would submit that petitioners 2 and 3 are
under her custody from their birth and she has been taking caring of
them. She had also admitted the 2nd petitioner into the Camford
International School, of which were done with the interest of the
minors at heart. She would submit that once the custody is given to
her she would take care of her daughters and their interest would not
be compromised. She would also submit that acts of violence of the
husband increased further and this was causing a great deal of
psychological effects upon the daughters. She would submit that, as a
mother, it would be in the best interest of the minors to be under her
care and custody.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
10. Thereafter, it appears that the US Court had granted an ex
parte interim custody to the father, the 1st respondent and the children,
viz; petitioners 2 and 3 have also been taken away by the 1 st
respondent. The 1st petitioner has sought for the following reliefs in
the Domestic Violence Petition:-
“a). To prohibit the respondent to contact or
communicate the petitioner directly or indirectly or
through telephone U/S.18(d) of D.V.Act.
b).To produce bond and security for not
involving his family dispute U/S.19(3).
c).to prohibit the respondent.no.1 to 3 and
their men and agent from disturbing and causing
violence to the 1st petitioner parents who is
assisting the aggrieved and petitioner U/S. 18(f).
d).to prohibit the respondent.no.1 to 3 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
enter the educational institution of the 2nd and 3rd
petitioner and other frequently visiting place of the
petitioners and the working place of the 1st
petitioner U/S.190.
e). To handover the gold ornaments of about
200 sovereigns and all to her sitres and other
articles of the 1st petitioner or Rs.60 Lakhs for the
compensation of jewels and other articles
belonging to the 1st petitioner left behind in the
matrimonial home under Section 19(8).
f). To give the marriage and reception
expenses which were spent by the complainant
Rs.10 lakhs under section 19(8).
g).to restrain all the respondent.no.1 to 3 and
their men or agent from removing the custody of the
2nd and 3rd petitioner from the 1st petitioner and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
to contact or communicate the 2nd and 3rd
petitioner directly or indirectly or through
telephone under section 21 DV act.
h).To pay a compensation of Rs.1 Crore to the
petitioner for the Domestic violence done by the
Respondents U/S.22 of D.V.Act.”
11. Respondents 2 and 3 on entering appearance in the above
matter have taken out an application in CMP.No.20868/2021 to strike
off their names from the array of parties. They have challenged the
petition on the following grounds:-
i. The 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent are American citzens
and therefore are not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Special Court
for Trial of Domestic Violence Act Cases, Coimbatore and therefore
the petition filed by the 1st petitioner, an American citizen is not
maintainable. They would rely upon the very statements contained in
the petition filed by the 1st petitioner to substantiate the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
statement.
ii. The 1st petitioner who is an American citizen and whose visa
has expired is over staying in the country without any lawful
authority.
iii. The 1st petitioner would not fall within the definition of the
aggrieved person as set out in Section 2A of the Domestic Violence
Act (herein after called as the “Act”) in as much as the allegations
contained therein are vague and do not make out a case of Domestic
Violence.
iv. The 1st petitioner had participated in the proceedings before
the American Court initiated by the 1st respondent and orders have
been passed only after hearing her and considering her pleadings.
v. The learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore does not
have the jurisdiction to entertain the said application as the 1st
petitioner is not amenable the jurisdiction as contemplated under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
Section 27 of the Act.
vi. The 1st petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 have not been in a
domestic relationship as the 1st petitioner has hardly stayed with
them. She having left for the United States within a few days of her
marriage.
vii. Vague allegations not substantiated by date, place or time
have been pleaded by the 1st petitioner in her petition and there is no
categoric statement about the allegations of domestic violence.
viii. The very petition is barred by limitation in as much as the
allegations of domestic violence, if any as set out in the petition, dates
back to the year 2017.
ix. In the light of the fact that the 1st petitioner has since
participated in the divorce proceedings and signed on a Mediated
Settlement Agreement on 21.08.2023 stating that both parties have no
further claim against each other, the present petition is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
maintainable.
12. The respondents 2 and 3 have also raised several other
grounds touching upon each and every prayer set out in the revision.
However, as stated earlier, the main crux of the proceedings is
whether a case of Domestic Violence has been made against
respondents 2 and 3.
Submissions:-
13. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondents 2 and 3/petitioners herein would submit that an American
citizen cannot prosecute an Indian citizen and can do so only after
obtaining sanction from the Central Government. In this regard he
would rely upon Section 188 of Cr.P.C. and would rely upon the
following judgments :-
"i.(2022) 1 MLJ (Crl) Mad.1, ii.AIR 1947 Madras 352, iii.AIR
1949 Madras 3, iv.AIR 1952 Punjab 178, v.1966 CRL. L.J. 366
vi.(1973) CRL L J. 1021, vii.(1993) 3 SCC 609, viii.(2005) 1 SCC
617, ix.(2007) CRl L. J. 636, x.(2008) 6 SCC 789, xi.(2010) CRL. L.J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
592, xii. (2011) 9 SCC 527."
14. He would further submit that there are no specific
allegations against the respondents 2 and 3 in the DVC Petition. He
would in this regard place reliance upon the earlier proceedings
between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent which has been
reported in (2022) 1 MLJ (Crl) Mad.1 - Girish Arunagiri, American
citizen Vs. Mahalakshmi Senthil Nathan, American citizen and
another. where the Court has taken into account the fact that the
parties are American citizens and the fact that the 1st petitioner has
flouted the orders passed by the foreign Court wherein the Maryland
Court, after hearing both parties had granted the custody of the
children to the father.
15. The learned Senior counsel would also rely upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.19678/2021
which is an application filed by the 1st petitioner against the order in
HCP.No.654/2021 which is the subject matter of the judgement cited
supra in which the 1st petitioner has volunteered to return to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
United States subject to the condition that the 1st respondent would
bear the air fair, procure medical insurance, provide suitable
accommodation and monetary support. All the conditions were also
accepted by the 1st respondent.
16. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3
would submit that there has never been a shared household between
the 1st petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 nor a domestic
relationship in order to invoke the provisions of the Act. In this
regard, he would rely upon the judgment of the full bench of this court
reported in 2022 (6) CTC 833 - Arul Daniel and Others Vs. Suganya
and anothers. Therefore, he would contend that the learned Special
Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore has failed to appreciate these legal
principles and has simply rejected the case of the respondents 2 and 3.
17. He would rely upon a judgement of the Bombay High Court
reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 636 - Sejal Dharmesh Ved Vs. The
State of Maharashtra & Ors in support of his argument that a person
who has returned from the United States of America and who has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
lived in India for a year cannot file an application claiming domestic
violence during her earlier domestic relationship.
18. Per contra, Mr. I.Abrar Md. Adbullah appearing on behalf
of the 1st petitioners would submit that sufficient grounds for
sustaining the petition for domestic violence has been set out in the
petition filed before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. He
would rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
(C) No.19678 of 2021 to state that the leave had been granted by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court to approach them in case of the non-
compliance of the consent order based upon which the Hon’ble
Supreme Court had disposed of the SLP by order dated 17.12.2021.
19. He would rely upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reported in (2022) 8 CC 90 - Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi
to highlight what domestic violence is and would draw the attention of
this Court to paragraph 75.2 where the court was answering the
following questions; “Whether it is mandatory for the aggrieved
person to reside with those person against whom the allegations had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
been levied at the point of commission of violence.” The Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved
person to actually reside with the other person. He would also draw
the attention of the court to the next question which was posed before
the Bench which reads as follows: “Whether there should be a
subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and
against whom the relief is claimed". The Hon’ble Supreme Court
answered this question by contending that the aggrieved person was
not in a shared household at the time of the filing of the application
but who has lived so earlier and at which point in time, they have been
subjected to domestic violence could maintain a petition.
20. With reference to the issue of limitation, he would rely upon
the judgment reported in 2022 3 LW. 792 - P.Krishnappa Vs.
Padmavathy.
21. In support of the contention that a domestic violence case
can also be filed against a foreigner he would rely upon the judgement
reported in 2020 SCC Online Del 1319 - Karan Goel Vs. Kanika
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
Goel. This judgment has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in SLP (C) No.14805/2020 -Karan Goel Vs. Kanika Goel.
22 With reference to Section 188 of Cr.P.C., he would rely
upon the judgement reported in (2022) 13 SCC 136 - Sartaj Khan Vs.
State of Uttarakhand.
23. With reference to the issue of shared household, he would
rely upon the judgement passed by the Bombay High Court reported
in 2022 SCC Online Bom 1198 - Aditya Anand Varma and Others
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others.
Discussion:-
24. The issue that has now been placed for consideration before
this Court can be discussed under the following heads:-
a) Whether the 1st petitioner has made out a case of domestic
violence against the respondents 2 and 3?
b) Whether the 1st petitioner was in a shared household with
respondents 2 and 3?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
c) Whether the 1st petitioner being a foreigner can initiate a
domestic violence petition against respondents 2 and 3 who are Indian
citizens and against the 1st respondent who is a US citizen without
obtaining he sanction of the Central Government under Section 188 of
the Cr.PC.?
d) Whether by signing the Mediation Settlement Agreement
before the Marylands Court in the divorce proceedings initiated by the
1st respondent after the filling of this Domestic Violence Petition, the
1st petitioner can still maintain the DVC proceedings?
25. As regards Issue (a), the 1st petitioner has filed an
application under Section 12 of the Act against respondents 1 to 3
alleging that the respondents have indulged in acts of domestic
violence. The present revision petitioners who are the in-laws i.e.,
father-in-law and mother-in-law of the petitioner seek to have their
name struck of from the array of parties on the ground that there are
no allegations made out against them. The relationship between the
parties have already been extracted in the paragraph 3 supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
26. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions, it is
necessary to briefly set out the allegations that have been made by the
1st petitioner against respondent 2 and 3.
27. In para no.3 of the petition, the 1st petitioner would state as
follows: "the respondent.no.1 to 3 Started to demand dowry and other
"Articlesss" (Gifts) from the 1st petitioner's family. The 1st
petitioner's parents provided the entire"Articles", as demanded by the
respondent.no.1 to 3, in order to maintain the peaceful matrimonial
life of the 1st petitioner in her with her husband and in laws." This
appears to be the first allegation that has been made against
respondents 2 and 3.
28. The second allegation is set out in para no.4 of the petition
wherein the petitioner would state as follows : "The 1st petitioner
submits that during her stay at Maryland, USA the 3rd respondent
used to contact the 1st respondent regularly over phone and skype
and misguide the 1st respondent not to spend any money for the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
petitioner and to send all his earnings to the 2nd and 3rd respondent
herein. The 1st petitioner submits that the 1st respondent was
affectionate towards the 1st petitioner but only due to the ill advices
of the 2nd and the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent had compelled
the 1st petitioner and forcibly took custody of all jewels, cash and
other belongings of 1st petitioner by coercion and threats, but the 1st
petitioner has tolerated all such acts for a peaceful marital life with
the 1st respondent."
29. The third allegation which has been made against
respondents 2 and 3 is set out as follows: "the respondent.no.2 and 3
had been calling the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent over skype
conference call the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent over skype
conference almost every month exactly during her menstrual period
and used to torture the 1st petitioner for not getting conceived and the
conversation used to last for even 2 hours continuously. Thus the
Respondent No.2 and 3 harassed the 1st petitioner by mentally by
words, even though the respondent remained silent and never
questioned or adviced their parents not to harass the 1st petitioner."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
30. The fourth allegation is that; ""After, delivery the 2nd and
3rd respondent came to see the 1st petitioner and child l.e. the 2nd
petitioner herein and demanded dowry from the 1st petitioner's
parents for buying a new house in the 1st respondents name at USA.
After several demands the 1st petitioner's father with no other option
to save his daughters married life, gave Rs.5 lakhs to 1st respondent
for down payment. Only after that the 1st respondent and his family
members allowed the 1st petitioner and her daughter to enter the
matrimonial house at USA."
31.The last of the allegation is at paragraph no.8 which is as
follows:
"Subsequent to the above said incident, all the respondent.no.1
to 3, through their relatives and friends, was continuously threatening
the 1st respondent.no.1 to 3 also threatened the 1st petitioner by
saying that if 1st respondent returned to USA, he would separate the
children from 1st petitioner and she would be left in lurch alone and
forced to beg at the 1st respondent."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
32. Apart from these allegations, no other averments have been
made against respondents 2 and 3. The relief that the 1st petitioner had
claimed has been extracted in para no.10 supra. A mere perusal of
which would clearly indicate that the reliefs claimed and the
allegations that are contained in the petition have no connection.
33. The 2nd prayer relates to the production of a bond in
security as contemplated under Section 19(3) of the Act. Section 19 of
the Act deals with the residence orders. and Section 19(3) of the Act
relates to the execution of a bond in the context of Section 19 of the
Act. Nowhere in the petition has the 1st petitioner claimed any
residence orders in the shared household. That apart, the 1st petitioner
has not lived in a shared household along with respondents 2 and 3
and taking note of this fact as well as the fact that the 1st petitioner
has not demanded resident orders, prayer (b) appears to be
misconceived.
34. As regards the relief claimed under prayer(c) which relates
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
to a prohibition of causing violence to the 1st petitioner's parents.
Such a request is beyond the pleadings. Nowhere in the petition has
the 1st petitioner contended that her parents were being subjected to
disturbance and violence at the hands of respondents 1 to 3. Without
such an allegation, the 1st petitioner has come forward to make such a
claim.
35. Prayers (d) and (g) are no longer available to the 1st
petitioner in as much as petitioners 2 and 3 are now in the care and
custody of the 1st respondent in the United States of America pursuant
to orders of the Marryland's Court.
36. As regards Prayer (a) and (e) there is no clarity in as much as
the that the 1st petitioner has not even stated against whom the relief
is claimed.
37. A perusal of the allegations made against respondents 2 and
3 which have been extracted supra, the 1st petitioner has not given
specific details, the date of such demand and the persons to whom a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
request for gift had been made. Further, these allegations remain
unsubstantiated, more particularly when the 1st petitioner had got
married on 15.01.2007, and on 29.01.2007, i.e.,within a period of two
weeks, the 1st petitioner had left for the United States of America
along with the 1st respondent and therefore, her contention that
demand for dowry had been made appears to be an afterthought, more
particularly when the 1st petitioner would herself say that the gold,
silver, watch etc. have been given by her parents to her and her
husband as per their tradition. The details of the articles that had been
demanded as dowry have not been set out and the allegations are
rather vague.
38. With reference to the allegations contained in paragraph
no.4 once again, the telephonic conversation that a parent has with his
or her child is found fault with on the ground that the 1st respondent
was advised not to spend money on the 1st petitioner. Immediately
after making the statement, the 1st petitioner would go on to state that
the 1st respondent was very affectionate towards her but only due to
the ill advice of respondents 2 and 3, he had compelled her to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
handover the custody of the cash, jewels and other belongings. From
the allegation, it is not clear as to whether these articles were taken
custody in India or in the United States of America since the parties
have moved to America within 14 days of the marriage. It is also not
the case of the 1st petitioner that she had carried the jewelry, the gold,
silver and Streedhan articles that were given to her by her parents as
per tradition to the United States of America. That apart, the allegation
is against the 1st respondent and not against respondents 2 and 3.
39. The next allegation is with reference to the anxiety of
respondents 2 and 3 for a grandchild. The enquiry made in this regard
to the 1st petitioner is now twisted out of context as a mental
harassment.
40. The allegation that after the child (2nd petitioner) was born,
the 2nd and 3rd respondents had demanded dowry from the 1st
petitioner's parents for buying a house in the United States of America
is also not substantiated by any document and there is nothing to show
that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been transferred by parents of the 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
petitioner to the 1st respondent for the down payment of the house.
Therefore, none of these allegations which have been made in the
petition nor the relief claimed make out the case of domestic violence
against respondents 2 and 3.
41. Another aspect which has to be considered is issue no.(b).
What is a shared household came up for consideration in the judgment
reported in (2017) 8 SCC 550 -Manmohan Attavar VS. Neelam
Manmohan Attavar.
42. Section 2 (s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act would read as follows:-
"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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title,
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;"
43. In order to determine the allegations of domestic violence
pleaded by the 1st petitioner, the 1st petitioner has to first of all
establish a domestic relationship as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act.
Section 2(f) of the Act defines domestic relationship as follows:-
"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;"
44. Therefore it is necessary for a person pleading domestic
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
violence to establish a domestic relationship in a shared household.
Admittedly, the 1st petitioner herein has not been living with the
respondents 2 and 3 as she had left for the United States of America
within a fortnight of her marriage. In the application, which is the
subject matter of this revision, the 1st respondents have set out a
tabulated statement containing the details of the time that they had
spent with the 1st petitioner and 1st respondent in America and
everytime that they visited the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent in
the United States of America, there was one or the other relative of the
1st petitioner who was living along with the 1st petitioner and the 1st
respondent. Further, it is not the case of the 1st petitioner, as pleaded
in her Domestic Violence Petition, that the acts of domestic violence
had taken place in the United States of America. On the contrary, the
allegations are that the respondents 2 and 3 have been instigating the
1st respondent from India. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the 1st
petitioner has not made out a case of a shared household.
45. In the judgment reported in 2021 1 SCC 414 - Satish
Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha Ahuja , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
framed certain questions that arose for determination and the points
relevant to the facts of the instant case are the two questions set out in
para. nos.30.1 and 30.2 , which reads as follows:-
"30.1. (1) Whether definition of "shared household"
under Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ("the 2005 Act"). has to be
read to mean that shared household can only be that
household which is household of joint family or in which
husband of the aggrieved person has a share?
30.2. (2) Whether judgment of this Court in S.R.
Batra v. Taruna Batra has not correctly interpreted the
provision of Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and does not lay down a
correct law?"
46. In paragraph no.44, the learned Judges had observed that an
aggrieved person, as defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, is the
person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
aggrieved person who alleges to have been subjected to domestic
violence by the other party. In paragraph no.46, the learned Judges
had observed that the next definition which is relevant is for the
recognition of the issue is Section 2(s) dealing with the shared
household. After discussing the definition and the judgments in this
regard, the learned judges had held as follows:-
" Thus, first condition to be fulfilled for a
shared household is that person aggrieved lives or at
any stage has lived in a domestic relationship. The
second part sub-divided in two parts is- (a) includes
such a household whether owned or tenanted either
jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent
and 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, interest
or equity and (b)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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
shared household. In the above definition, two
expressions, namely, “aggrieved person” and
“respondent” have occurred. From the above
definition, following is clear:- (i) it is not requirement
of law that aggrieved person may either own the
premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or
singly; (ii) the household may belong to a 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;
and (iii) the shared household may either be owned or
tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly."
"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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
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, the 2005 Act was enacted to give a
higher right in favour of women. The 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
Sections 17 and 19 of the 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.
47. In the judgment relied upon by the 1st petitioner/1st
respondent reported in 2022 SCC Online Bom 1198 - Aditya Anand
Varma and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
Judge had after discussing the various judgements including the case
of the Supreme Court which is referred supra, namely, Satish
Chandra Ahuja case, observed as follows:-
"43. In the Indian societal context, the right of a
woman to reside in the shared household is of unique
importance. The reasons for the same are not far to
see. In India, most women are not educated nor are
they earning; neither do they have financial
independence so as to live singly. She may be
dependent for residence in a domestic relationship not
only for emotional support but for the aforesaid
reasons. The said relationship may be by
consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in
the nature of marriage, adoption or is a part of or is
living together in a joint family. A majority of women
in India do not have independent income or financial
capacity and are totally dependent vis-à-vis their
residence on their male or other female relations who
may have a domestic relationship with her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
44. In our view, the D.V. Act is a piece of Civil
Code which is applicable to every woman in India
irrespective of her religious affiliation and/or social
background for a more effective protection of her
rights guaranteed under the Constitution and in order
to protect women victims of domestic violence
occurring in a domestic relationship. Therefore, the
expression 'joint family' cannot mean as understood in
Hindu Law. Thus, the expression 'family members
living together as a joint family', means the members
living jointly as a family. In such an interpretation,
even a girl child/children who is/are cared for as
foster children also have a right to live in a shared
household and are conferred with the right under Sub-
Section (1) of Section 17 of the D.V. Act. When such a
girl child or woman becomes an aggrieved person, the
protection of Sub-Section (2) of Section 17 comes into
play."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
48. The aforesaid judgements are purely academic in the instant
case in as much as the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent are
American citizens and in the divorce proceedings, before the
Maryland Court, USA a Mediation Settlement agreement has been
signed and entered into between the 1st petitioner and the 1st
respondent wherein the parties have agreed for a mutual waiver of
personal property of each other, whereunder, the parties had agreed
that the tangible personal properties and leasehold items which are
located at the 1st respondent's residence, (the plaintiff therein) except
for items in schedule A would remain as sole and exclusively property
of the 1st respondent and similarly the tangible and personal property
and the household property that are located in the 1st petitioner's
residence (defendant therein) together with the items in the schedule A
are the exclusive property of the 1st petitioner, and the items set out in
schedule A would be taken possession by the 1st petitioner. In the said
agreement, the parties have agreed to a mutual general release thereby,
they have clearly set out that they had no claim against each other.
This agreement has been signed during the pendency of the instant
Domestic Violence Petition before the Special Judicial Magistrate at
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
Coimbatore.
49. Further, the 1st petitioner has also handed over the custody
of the children to the 1st respondent pursuant to the orders of the
Court at Maryland. The allegation that is now made out by the 1st
petitioner that she was not given a good hearing was already raised by
her in the HCP proceedings which is reported in (2022) 1 MLJ (Crl)
Mad.1 and the Division Bench of this Court has held that the 1st
petitioner was given a hearing and it is only on her statement that
orders have been passed. Therefore, in the absence of the allegations
against respondents 2 and 3 and the fact that the 1st petitioner is not in
a shared household with respondents 2 and 3, it has to be held that the
1st petitioner has not made out a case against respondents 2 and 3.
50. The 1st petitioner who has signed the Mediation Settlement
Agreement is still continuing the Domestic Violence Petition
particularly when she had agreed in the said agreement that she has no
further claims against the 1st respondent. In the said agreement, there
is absolutely no allegations about the 1st petitioner being subjected to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
harassment by respondents 2 and 3. That apart, most of the allegations
that have been made in the DVC Petition is against the 1st respondent
and having settled the dispute with the 1st respondent by signing the
mediation settlement agreement. It is not fair on the part of the 1st
petitioner to continue the proceedings against respondents 2 and 3
particularly when the allegations have not been made against them.
Therefore, the continuance of the DVC proceedings against
respondents 2 and 3 is misconceived.
51. The 1st petitioner has raised an issue that the continuance of
the Domestic Violence Petition without the sanction of the Central
Government is contrary to the provisions of section 188 of the Cr.P.C.
Section 188 of Cr.P.C reads as follows:
"188. Offence committed outside India - When
an offence is committed outside India -
(a) by a citizen of India, whether on the high
seas or elsewhere; or
(b) by a person, not being such citizen, on any
ship or aircraft registered in India, he may be dealt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
with in respect of such offence as if it had been
committed at any place within India at which he may
be found :
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in any of the
preceding sections of this Chapter, no such offence
shall be inquired into or tried in India except with the
previous sanction of the Central Government."
52. The judicial pronouncements in this regard is that a sanction
under Section 188 of Cr.P.C may not be a condition precedent for
investigation but that before the trial commences, sanction has to
necessarily be obtained. In the instant case, the person who has
initiated the proceedings is an American citizen as also the 1st
respondent and it is only the respondents 2 and 3 who are the citizens
of this country. The judgments that has been relied upon by either side
is a case where the complainant is a citizen of this country. However,
in the instant case, the complainant is a foreigner. Even in the case
relied upon by the learned counsel for the 1st petitioner reported in
2020 SCC Online Del 1319 - Karan Goel Vs. Kanika Goel.. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
respondent/wife had not obtained American citizenship and it is only
the husband who was an American citizen and he had raised an
objection to the initiation for divorce in India. However, the Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court held that since India remained a
domicile of choice for the wife, the Courts in India were not divested
of the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, since the
marriage took place in Delhi as per the Sikh ceremonies.
53. In paragraph no.37 of the judgment, the learned Judges have
observed as follows:-
"In the instant case, the respondent/wife
remains a citizen of India and therefore, is a
domicile of India for all intents and purposes. She
has chosen to approach the courts in India for
obtaining a decree for divorce. Section 19(iiia)
read with Section 1 and Section 2 of the Act must
be interpreted meaningfully and in such a manner
as to confer jurisdiction on courts in India for
entertaining a petition under the Act filed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
wife in circumstances where her husband has
deserted her to go abroad or invoked the
jurisdiction of foreign courts to obtain ex-parte
orders/decree, leaving her with no efficacious
remedy outside the country."
54. A bare reading of the Section would indicate that the
provisions of Section 188 Cr.P.C. would apply in the case of the
following offences where the offence is committed outside India:-
(a) by a citizen of India - whether it was committed on the high
seas or elsewhere,
(b) by a person who is not a citizen of India in any ship or
aircraft registered in India.
In these cases it shall be deemed that the offence is committed in
India.
55. The proviso would read that the offences detailed in Section
188(a) and (b) shall not be enquired into or tried unless there is a
previous sanction of the Central Government. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
primordial requirement for invoking the provisions of Section 188
Cr.P.C. is the person committing the offence and the place where the
offence is committed. The Section does not refer to the person making
the complaint.
56. Admittedly, in the instant case the allegation is that the
respondents 1 to 3 have committed an offence under the Act. As
regards respondents 2 and 3 the allegation is that from India they have
been instigating the 1st respondent to commit offence (harassment) in
the US. The allegation against the 1st respondent is that he is
committing an offence in the US. The 1st respondent is not a citizen of
India. Both these circumstances will not fall within the provisions of
Section 188 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the institution of the proceedings by
the 1st petitioner without obtaining the sanction from the Central
Government under section 188 of Cr.P.C cannot be found fault with.
57. The Trial Court, before whom all these arguments had been
addressed has not considered the same and has abdicated its
jurisdiction by simply holding that the issues have to be decided only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
after trial. This observation is absolutely misconceived and
consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned
order passed in CMP.No.20868 of 2021 (CNR No.TNCBOA-
026194-2021) in D.V.A No.17 of 2021 dated 23.09.2024 is set aside
and the name of respondents 2 and 3 are struck off from the array of
parties in D.V.A.No.17 of 2021. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
28.05.2025
(shr)
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1.The Special Court for Trial of
Domestic Violence Act cases,
Coimbatore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
P.T. ASHA. J.,
(shr)
and
28.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/06/2025 01:49:49 pm )
