Patna High Court
Hemant Gagan Singh And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 15 July, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14545 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-
======================================================
1. Hemant Gagan Singh, son of Devitri Prasad Narayan Singh.
2. Devitri Prasad Narayan Singh @ D.P.N. Singh @ Gagan Gee, son of late
Harekrishna Prasad Narayan Singh.
3. Smt. Kusum Singh, wife of Devitri Prasad Narayan Singh.
All resident of House No.228, Bharat Marg, Hanuman Nagar, At P.O.
and District- Jaipur, Pin Code- 302021 (Rajasthan).
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Bihar.
2. Anima Matri Singh, wife of Hemant Gagan Singh, daughter of Ashutosh
Prasad Narayan Singh, resident of Maitri Kutir, Tilak Nagar, P.O. and P.S.
Kankarbagh, District- Patna
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 51161 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2011 Thana- DOMESTIC VIOLENACE District- Patna
======================================================
1. Shishir Gagan Singh, Son of late D.P.N. Singh.
2. Deepali Singh, wife of Shishir Gagan Singh.
Both resident of L/28 D.L.F. Phase-ll , Gurugram (Haryana)
... ... Petitioners
Versus
Anima Matri Singh, wife of Hemant Gagan Singh, daughter of Ashutosh
Prasad Narayan Singh Resident of Maitri Kutir, Tilak Nagar, P.O and P.S-
Kankarbhag, Dist- Patna
... ... Opposite Parties
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 14545 of 2015)
For the Petitioner : Ms. Nutan Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. 1, APP
For the Opp. Party No.2: Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 51161 of 2022)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar Ojha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, APP
For the opp. party No.2: Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate
M. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
2/38
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 15-07-2025
Heard learned counsels for the petitioners of both
the cases, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
opposite party no.2.
2. Both these Criminal Miscellaneous
Applications arise out of Domestic Violence Case No.02 of
2011 filed by the opposite party no.2. In both these cases, the
petitioners have assailed the entire proceedings arising out of
Domestic Violence Case No.02 of 2011 pending in the Court of
learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Patna.
3. During the pendency of Criminal
Miscellaneous No.14545 of 2015, the petitioner no.1 namely,
Hemant Gagan Singh, who was the husband of opposite party
no.2 and petitioner no.2 namely, Devitri Prasad Narayan Singh,
who was father-in-law have died. Therefore, this case stood
withdrawn vide order dated 13.02.2023 as against the aforesaid
two petitioners. Now, Criminal Miscellaneous No.14545 of
2015 is only confined to petitioner no.3, Kusum Singh, who is
the mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2.
4. The petitioners of Criminal Miscellaneous
No.51161 of 2022 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
3/38
opposite party no.2.
5. These cases arise from the Domestic
Violence Case No.02 of 2011 preferred by opposite party no.2-
Anima Matri Singh against her husband and his family members
inter alia alleging that her marriage was solemnized with the
petitioner no.1-Hemant Gagan Singh (since deceased) on
29.06.2001
at Jaipur (Rajasthan) according to Hindu rites and
rituals. In the marriage, the father of the opposite party no.2 has
given Rs.3,00,000/- cash as well as gold and silver jewellery. It
is further alleged that after the marriage the in-laws of the
opposite party no.2 started torturing her for demand of dowry. It
is stated that the opposite party no.2 stayed in her matrimonial
home for eight months and during that period she came to know
that her husband (deceased) was suffering from epilepsy and she
was the caregiver of her husband during the aforesaid eight
months period, however, it is alleged that the family members of
her husband used to taunt her.
5.1. It is next alleged by the opposite party no.2
that during the aforesaid period of eight months she had
conceived but due to misbehaviour of her in-laws, on
05.08.2002 she left her matrimonial home and came to her
parents house in Patna where she gave birth to her son on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
06.01.2003. Thereafter, the father of the opposite party no.2
tried to restore the matrimonial life of the parties by requesting
the in-laws of the opposite party no.2 to take back the opposite
party no.2 to her matrimonial house but all efforts of restoration
of the matrimonial relationship failed.
5.2. It is next alleged that the husband (deceased)
had filed a suit for divorce on the ground of cruelty and
desertion at Family Court, Jaipur, which was later transferred to
Family Court, Patna on 02.09.2007 by the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the same was re-numbered as Divorce Case
no.657 of 2008.
5.3. It is lastly stated by the opposite party no.2
that she had preferred a maintenance case bearing Maintenance
Case Case No.19M of 2008 under section 24 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. Both the cases i.e. divorce case and
maintenance case are pending in the Court of learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna. Therefore, the opposite
party no.2 had prayed to either to allow her to reside in her
matrimonial house or provide her rent in lieu thereof. Further,
pass an order granting compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- under
section 22 and monetary relief of Rs.20,00,000/- under section
20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
2005.
6. The learned counsels appearing for the
petitioners submits that the proceedings initiated under the
Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is
merely a misuse of law in order to pressurize the petitioners to
succumb to the unreasonable demands of the opposite party
no.2. It is submitted by learned counsels for the petitioners that
the opposite party no.2 had left her matrimonial house in
August, 2002 and thereafter multiple attempts were made by the
petitioners to restore the matrimonial life of the parties but all
attempts went in vain and ultimately, the husband (deceased) of
the opposite party no.2 was constrained to file a matrimonial
case for divorce in the year 2007 at Jaipur. It is emphasized by
learned counsels for the petitioners that the present proceeding
under the Domestic Violence Act has been initiated by the
opposite party no.2 in in the year 2011 i.e. almost after nine
years of her desertion when the husband (deceased) had
preferred the aforesaid divorce case, which itself is indicative of
the fact that the present proceeding under the Domestic Violence
Act has been set in motion only to pressurize and harass the
petitioners. It is further emphasized by the learned counsels for
the petitioners that the opposite party no.2 has been staying
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
separately from her husband since the year 2007.
7. It is next submitted by the learned counsels
for the petitioners that the proceedings under the Domestic
Violence Act was initiated without consideration of any report
of the Protection Officer as the aforesaid report of the Protection
Officer under the Domestic Violence Act was submitted only on
01.01.2012 but the case was admitted on 11.01.2011 itself.
8. It has been submitted by learned counsel for
the petitioners that the husband of the opposite party no.2 along
with his mother and father has also filed a Miscellaneous Case
No. 16 of 2013 under section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 praying for the custody of his son.
9. By way of filing a supplementary affidavit,
the petitioners have brought on record the fact that the deceased
husband of the opposite party no.2 had invested a substantial
amount which had come to him after selling certain properties
and this fact was in the knowledge of the opposite party no.2.
Furthermore, the deceased husband of the opposite party no.2
had taken a life insurance policy wherein the opposite party no.2
is the nominee.
10. It has been argued by learned counsel for the
petitioners that the mother-in-law of the opposite party no.2 is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
on her last breath and the husband and father-in-law of the
opposite party no.2 have already died. He has pointed out that
though the properties of the petitioners have already been
portioned much prior to the marriage but in order to support the
son of his deceased brother, the petitioners have already paid an
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- through a demand draft and also
supplied the policy documents to the opposite party no.2 in
course of hearing of quashing petition preferred by the brother-
in-law and sister-in-law of the opposite no.2 and this fact has
already been recorded by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2024
passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.75704 of 2023 (Shishir
Gagan Singh @ Shirshir Gagan Singh & Anr. vs. State of Bihar
& Anr.), by which the order taking cognizance against them was
quashed. In the said order, it has also been recorded that the
property of the deceased husband and the brother-in-law of
opposite party no.2 being portioned long back.
11. In reply to the aforesaid supplementary
affidavit, the opposite party no.2 has filed her reply stating
therein that the petitioners belong to an affluent family and her
father-in-law retired from the post of D.G.P., C.R.P.F. and her
in-laws were settled at Jaipur (Rajasthan). It has also been stated
that the in-laws of opposite party no.2 belong to "Hardi Estate"
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
and her husband is one of the heirs of that family, who was
suffering from several disease like epilepsy and asthma.
Initially, the relation between the opposite party no. 2 and her
husband was very cordial and from their wedlock a child was
born in the year 2003 but subsequently her in-laws ill treated her
and ultimately, she has been ousted from the house and
thereafter she started residing at her parental house at Patna. In
the reply to the supplementary affidavit the opposite party no.2
has further stated that the aforesaid property purchased by the
petitioners is simply not possible from the income of the
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 as the petitioner no. 1 was working as a
Legal Advisor at Steel Authority of India Ltd., Delhi and
therefore, the entire property has been purchased by the
petitioner nos. 1 and 2 from the money received by selling the
property at Patna and Jaipur.
12. It has also been stated in the reply to the
supplementary affidavit that there are huge properties of the
petitioners at Patna i.e. "Hardi Kothi" situated at Bank road and
Fraser road, Patna as also in Jaipur. It is alleged that the
petitioners have sold their entire properties at Patna and Jaipur
and through the proceeds they have purchased the residential
property at D.L.F. Gurgaon without giving any share to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
opposite party no. 2 or her son.
13. It has also been stated that the son of the
opposite party no.2 is also the heir of petitioner no.3, Kusum
Devi, who is moving pillar to post for his survival due to lack of
money. The son of the opposite party no.2 has not even
completed his education since his mother has no income. It is
also stated in the reply that right from the beginning the
grievance of the opposite party no.2 was to provide her with a
residential house at Patna including some money for
maintaining her livelihood and education of her child but, the
petitioners regularly deserted her and tortured in various
manners and had not permitted to enter into the house at
Gurugram.
14. It is lastly submitted by the opposite party
no.2 that the petitioners are enjoying the fruits of the proceeds
of selling even the share of her deceased husband without giving
the rightful share to the opposite party no.2 or her son who is the
rightful heir of the petitioners.
15. An interlocutory application has been filed
by the petitioners to bring on record certain additional facts on
record. In the aforesaid interlocutory application the petitioners
have submitted that the petitioners are the elder brother, sister-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
in-law, mother and father of the deceased husband of the
opposite party no.2. It has been reiterated that the husband and
the father-in-law had passed away during the pendency of the
present case. It is thereafter been stated that during the pendency
of the present case the opposite party no. 2 had also preferred to
file a case under section 498-A of the I.P.C. and the petitioners
had thereafter had also preferred an application under section
482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for the quashing of the aforesaid case.
This Court while considering the aforesaid application on behalf
of the brother-in-law and the sister-in law in Cr. Misc. 75704 of
2023 vide order dated 03.09.2024 had quashed the order taking
cognizance. It has been stressed by the petitioners that the
properties were partitioned which was also duly noted in the
aforesaid order dated 03.09.2024.
16. A counter affidavit has been filed by the
opposite party no.2 in the matter wherein she has reiterated the
earlier stand taken in the reply to the supplementary affidavit.
Apart from reiteration of the earlier facts, it has further been
stated that the documents and the L.I.C. certificate supplied to
the opposite party no.2, which was noted by this Court while
quashing the cognizance order in complaint case no.6826 of
2022 against the brother-in-law and his wife is of no use. Lastly,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
the opposite party no.2 has prayed for providing a small
residence in order to maintain herself and her son.
17. Considered the submissions of the parties
and perused the materials available on record.
18. From the records, it appears that the opposite
party no.2 had filed Domestic Violence Case No.02 of 2011
under the DV Act, 2005 claiming the reliefs of residence,
monetary and compensatory reliefs. The complainant-opposite
party no.2 had arrayed her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-
law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law under the aforesaid
complaint preferred under section 12 of the DV Act, 2005.
During the pendency of this case, the husband and father-in-law
of the opposite party no.2 have passed away.
19. While considering a petition under section
482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners, who are brother-in-
law and sister-in-law of opposite party no.2, this Court had
noted the fact that the parties including her deceased husband
had partitioned long back and were dealing with their own share
in the property and the petitioners have already supplied all the
documents and also a demand draft of Rs.10,00,000/- prepared
in favour of the son of the opposite party no.2. After recording
the aforesaid facts and also the other contentions, this Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
vide order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous
No.75704 of 2023 had quashed the order taking cognizance
against the petitioners.
20. It is relevant to reproduce the order passed by
this Court in aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous No.75704 of
2023, which reads as under -
"2. The present application has been filed
for quashing of the order dated 16.12.2022 by
which learned Judicial Magistrate- 1 st Class,
Patna Sadar, Patna has taken cognizance against
the petitioners in Complaint Case No. 6826 (C) of
2022, registered for the offence u/ss 323, 406, 448,
498A of the Indian Penal Code and also for
quashing the order dated 03.06.2023, passed
learned Sessions Judge, Patna in Criminal
Revision No. 226 of 2023.
3. As per prosecution case, the accused
persons are alleged to have tortured and assaulted
the complainant due to non-fulfillment of demand
of dowry and ousted her from the matrimonial
home. The complainant's husband died in year
2016. When the complainant went there the
accused persons tried to snatch her son. She
further alleges that the accused persons did not
return any belongings to her. It is further alleged
that opposite party no.2 has filed a plethora of
cases against her husband, brother-in-law, sister-
in-law and mother-in-law in the year 2011. The
aforesaid cases were challenged before this Court
vide Cr. Misc. No.14545 of 2015 and upon hearing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
the parties, this Court was pleased to stay the
further proceeding in the court below and was
further pleased to refer the matter to the
Mediation Cell of the Hon'ble Patna High Court
vide order dated 13.02.2023.
4. The opposite party no. 2 has appeared in
person.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party
no. 2 has submitted that whatever documents with
regard to the insurance etc. relating to the
deceased husband of the opposite party no. 2 were
available with the petitioner may be supplied to
her.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
supplied all the documents and apart from this he
has also brought a Demand Draft of Rs. 10 Lakhs
in the name of son of opposite party no.2. The
Demand Draft has been handed over to the earned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
7. The petitioner no. 1 is the Brother-in-
law i.e. brother of the deceased husband of the
opposite party no. 2 and also considering the fact
that the parties had partitioned long back and
were dealing with their share in the property.
8. In the facts of the case, I am of the
opinion that no offence is made out against the
petitioners no. 1 and 2 who are husband and wife.
9. In my opinion, the prosecution of the
petitioners should not be allowed to continue and
it appears to be mala fide prosecution.
10. In view thereof, this application is
allowed.
11. The order dated 16.12.2022 passed in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
complaint case no.6826(C) of 2022 as well as the
order dated 03.06.2023 passed in Criminal
Revision No.226 of 2023 is hereby quashed."
21. For deciding this case, it would be apposite
to refer to the section 2(f), 2(q) and 2 (s) of the DV Act, 2005,
which 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(q) "respondent" means any adult male
person who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship with the aggrieved person and
against whom the aggrieved person has
sought any relief under this Act:
Provided that an aggrieved wife or
female living in a relationship in the nature
of a marriage may also file a complaint
against a relative of the husband or the
male partner;"
"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 house hold whether
owned or tenanted either jointly by the
aggrieved person and the respondent, or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
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 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"
22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Satish Chandra Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja reported as AIR 2020
SC 5397 = (2021) 1 SCC 414 had explained the law of 'shared
household' within the meaning of DV Act of 2005 and held as
under :-
"57. After noticing the ratio of the above
judgments, Section 2(s), which uses both
the expressions "means and includes" and
looking to the context, we are of the view
that the definition of "shared household"
in Section 2(s) is an exhaustive definition.
The first part of definition begins with the
expression "means" which is undoubtedly
an exhaustive definition and second part of
definition, which begins with word
"includes" is explanatory of what was
meant by the definition. Shri Nidhesh
Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant submits that even if it is accepted
that the definition of Section 2(s) is
exhaustive, his case is fully covered in both
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
the parts of the definition.
58. The use of both the expressions "means
and includes" in Section 2(s) of the 2005
Act, thus, clearly indicate the legislative
intent that the definition is exhaustive and
shall cover only those which fall within the
purview of definition and no other.
59. Now, reverting back to the definition of
Section 2(s), the definition can be divided
in two parts, first, which follows the word
"means" and second which follows the
word "includes". The second part which
follows "includes" can be further sub-
divided in two parts. The first part reads
"shared household means a household
where the person aggrieved has lived or at
any stage has lived in a domestic
relationship either singly or along with the
respondent". 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,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
irrespective of whether the respondent or
the aggrieved person has any right, title or
interest in the shared household. In the
above definition, two expressions, namely,
"aggrieved person" and "respondent"
have occurred. From the above definition,
the 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.
.......
66. The observations of this Court in S.R. Batra
v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 : (2007)
2 SCC (Cri) 56 in paras 24, 25 and 26 were
made while considering the expression
"person aggrieved lives or at any stage has
lived". This Court observed in para 26
that if the interpretation canvassed by the
learned counsel for the respondent is
accepted that the house of the husband's
relative where the respondent resided shall
become shared household, shall lead to
chaos and would be absurd. The
expression "at any stage has lived" occurs
in Section 2(s) after the words "where the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
person aggrieved lives". The use of the
expression "at any stage has lived"
immediately after words "person
aggrieved lives" has been used for object
different to what has been apprehended by
this Court in para 26. The expression "at
any stage has lived" has been used to
protect the women from denying the
benefit of right to live in a shared
household on the ground that on the date
when application is filed, she was
excluded from possession of the house or
temporarily absent. The use of the
expression "at any stage has lived" is for
the above purpose and not with the object
that wherever the aggrieved person has
lived with the relatives of husband, all
such houses shall become shared
household, which is not the legislative
intent. The shared household is
contemplated to be the household, which
is a dwelling place of aggrieved person in
present time.
67. When we look into the different kinds of
orders or reliefs, which can be granted on
an application filed by aggrieved person,
all orders contemplate providing protection
to the women in reference to the premises
in which aggrieved person is or was in
possession. Our above conclusion is further
fortified by statutory scheme as delineated
by Section 19 of the 2005 Act. In event, the
definition of "shared household" as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
occurring in Section 2(s) is read to mean
that all houses where the aggrieved person
has lived in a domestic relationship along
with the relatives of the husband shall
become shared household, there will be
number of shared household, which was
never contemplated by the legislative
scheme. The entire scheme of the Act is to
provide immediate relief to the aggrieved
person with respect to the shared
household where the aggrieved person lives
or has lived. As observed above, the use of
the expression "at any stage has lived" was
only with intent of not denying the
protection to aggrieved person merely on
the ground that aggrieved person is not
living as on the date of the application or
as on the date when the Magistrate
concerned passes an order under Section
19. The apprehension expressed by this
Court in para 26 in S.R. Batra v. Taruna
Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 : (2007) 2 SCC
(Cri) 56, thus, was not true apprehension
and it is correct that in event such
interpretation is accepted, it will lead to
chaos and that was never the legislative
intent. We, thus, are of the considered
opinion that shared household referred to
in Section 2(s) is the shared household of
aggrieved person where she was living at
the time when application was filed or in
the recent past had been excluded from the
use or she is temporarily absent.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
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. 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.
69. In para 29 of the judgment, this Court in
S.R. Batra v.Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC
169 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 56 held that wife
is only entitled to claim a right to residence
in a shared household and a shared
household would only mean the house
belonging to or taken on rent by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
husband, or the house which belongs to the
joint family of which the husband is a
member. The definition of "shared
household" as noticed in Section 2(s) does
not indicate that a shared household shall
be one which belongs to or taken on rent by
the husband. We have noticed the definition
of "respondent" under the Act. The
respondent in a proceeding under the
Domestic Violence Act can be any relative
of the husband. In event, the shared
household belongs to any relative of the
husband with whom in a domestic
relationship the woman has lived, the
conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are
satisfied and the said house will become a
shared household.
70. We are of the view that this Court in S.R.
Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 56 although noticed the
definition of "shared household" as given
in Section 2(s) but did not advert to
different parts of the definition which
makes it clear that for a shared household
there is no such requirement that the house
may be owned singly or jointly by the
husband or taken on rent by the husband.
The observation of this Court in S.R. Batra
v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 : (2007)
2 SCC (Cri) 56, that definition of "shared
household" in Section 2(s) is not very
happily worded and it has to be interpreted,
which is sensible and does not lead to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
chaos in the society also does not commend
us. The definition of "shared household" is
clear and exhaustive definition as observed
by us. The object and purpose of the Act
was to grant a right to aggrieved person, a
woman, of residence in shared household.
The interpretation which is put by this
Court in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007)
3 SCC 169 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 56 if
accepted shall clearly frustrate the object
and purpose of the Act. We, thus, are of the
opinion that the interpretation of definition
of "shared household" as put by this Court
in S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3
SCC 169 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 56 is not
correct interpretation and the said
judgment does not lay down the correct
law.
.....
90. Before we close our discussion on Section
2(s), we need to observe that the right to
residence under Section 19 is not an
indefeasible right of residence in shared
household especially when the daughter-in-
law is pitted against aged father-in-law and
mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the
evening of their life are also entitled to live
peacefully not haunted by marital discord
between their son and daughter-in-law.
While granting relief both in application
under Section 12 of the 2005 Act or in any
civil proceedings, the Court has to balance
the rights of both the parties. The directions
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
issued by the High Court [Ambika Jain v.
Ram Prakash Sharma, 2019 SCC OnLine
Del 11886] in para 56 adequately balance
the rights of both the parties.
91. In view of the foregoing discussions, we
answer Issues 1 and 2 in the following
manner:
91.1. The definition of "shared household" given
in Section 2(s) cannot be read to mean that
shared household can only be that
household which is household of the joint
family of which husband is a member or in
which husband of the aggrieved person has
a share.
91.2. The judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra v.
Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169 : (2007) 2
SCC (Cri) 56 has not correctly interpreted
Section 2(s) of the 2005 Act and the
judgment does not lay down a correct law."
23. From the aforesaid decisoin, it is clear that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a broad and purposive
interpretation to the meaning of 'shared household'. What flows
from the afore-quoted decision is that the definition of 'shared
household' under section 2(s) of the DV Act, 2005 is an
exhaustive definition and the shared household could belong to
any relative of the husband, however, it is amply emphasized for
our present purpose that the aggrieved woman must have lived
or be living in the shared household with such relative of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
husband against whom the claim has been filed under the D.V.
Act, 2005. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that the
right of residence, as provided to the daughter-in-law under
section 19 of the Act is not an indefeasible right and hence the
Court has to balance the rights of the parties. Reading the
provisions of section 2(f) and 2(s) together with the aforesaid
judgment, an aggrieved woman who has been in a domestic
relationship either in the past or at present with the respondent,
according to section 2(q) of the Act, and has been subjected to
domestic violence can seek the reliefs provided under Chapter-
IV of the DV Act, 2005. A domestic relationship would entail
persons living together or have lived together in a shared
household for instance by way of consanguinity, adoption,
marriage, relationship in the nature of marriage or family
members living together as a joint family. Therefore, a domestic
relationship arises only when the aggrieved person had lived
together with the respondents in a shared household.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi reported as AIR 2022 SC 2331
had held that it is not mandatory for the aggrieved person when
she is related by consanguinity, marriage or through a
relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
members living together as a joint family to actually reside with
those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled
at the time of commission of domestic violence. If a woman has
the right to reside in the shared household under section 17 of
the DV Act, 2005 and such a woman becomes an aggrieved
person or victim of domestic violence then she can seek reliefs
under the provisions of the aforesaid Act including the
enforcement of her right to live in a shared household. In other
words, if the married couple sets up a separate residence, even
then the complaint under the Act can be filed against the
'respondents' who were previously residing in the same shared
household. Therefore, the essential requirement is that at some
of time the aggrieved person and the 'respondent' must have
resided together in a domestic relationship.
25. Therefore, existence of a shared household is
necessary, no matter in the past or present, to bring an action,
which in the present case is pertinently lacking on account of
the family partition which had been effectuated in the year 1982
itself i.e. much prior to the marriage of opposite party no.2 with
the deceased petitioner no.1.
26. In the present case, there was a family
partition among the brothers i.e. the deceased husband and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
brother-in-law of opposite party no.2, therefore, the claim of the
opposite party no.2 is not sustainable against her brother-in-law
and his wife since the opposite party no.2 did not reside as a
joint family in a shared household with them.
27. The opposite party no.2 had left the
matrimonial home in August, 2002 itself and started living in
her paternal home at Patna. On account of partition, as noted
above, the deceased husband and the brother-in-law of the
opposite party no.2 were living separately, in these
circumstances, there could be no domestic relationship by virtue
of joint family or even otherwise which can be established as
against the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the opposite party
no.2 within the meaning of the DV Act.
28. Recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana, reported as 2025
SCC OnLine SC 263 has observed that Courts must exercise
caution and be judicious in entertaining criminal proceedings
arising out of domestic disputes against relatives and observed
that such proceedings should only be entertained when specific
allegations are made with credible material to support the same.
Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid decision, read as under:-
"33. It goes without saying that genuine cases of
cruelty and violence in domestic sphere,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
which do happen, ought to be handled with
utmost sensitivity. Domestic violence
typically happens within the four walls of
the house and not in the public gaze.
Therefore, such violence is not noticed by
public at large, except perhaps by the
immediate neighbours. Thus, providing
visible evidence by the victim of domestic
violence may not be easily forthcoming and
producing direct evidence may be hard and
arduous, which does not necessarily mean
that domestic violence does not occur. In
fact, to deal with this pernicious
phenomenon, stringent statutes like
Protection from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, have been enacted with very
expansive meaning and scope of what
amounts to domestic violence. Since,
violence perpetrated within the domestic
sphere by close relatives is now
criminalised entailing serious
consequences on the perpetrators, the
courts have to be careful while dealing with
such cases by examining whether there are
specific allegations with instances against
the perpetrators and not generalised
allegations. The purpose and mandate of
the law to protect the victims of domestic
violence is of paramount importance, and
as such, a balance has to be struck by
ensuring that while perpetrators are
brought to book, all the family members or
relatives are not indiscriminately brought
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
within the criminal net in a sweeping
manner.
35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal
cases relating to domestic violence, the
complaints and charges should be specific,
as far as possible, as against each and
every member of the family who are
accused of such offences and sought to be
prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to
misuse of the stringent criminal process by
indiscriminately dragging all the members
of the family. There may be situations
where some of the family members or
relatives may turn a blind eye to the
violence or harassment perpetrated to the
victim, and may not extend any helping
hand to the victim, which does not
necessarily mean that they are also
perpetrators of domestic violence, unless
the circumstances clearly indicate their
involvement and instigation. Hence,
implicating all such relatives without
making specific allegations and attributing
offending acts to them and proceeding
against them without prima facie evidence
that they were complicit and had actively
collaborated with the perpetrators of
domestic violence, would amount to abuse
of the process of law."
29. Further, in the case of Kamal vs. State of
Gujarat reported as 2025 INSC 504, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court while quashing an F.I.R. filed under section 498-A IPC,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
had held that allegations of taunts cannot justify initiation of
criminal proceedings against the relatives including parent-in-
laws in a matrimonial discord. Relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid decision read as under:-
"11. What is important, for the purposes of
deciding this case, is that in the FIR there
is no specific allegation of demand of
dowry by the accused. Further, the
allegation of harassment of the
complainant at the instance of the parents
in law is limited to extending taunts and
custody related issues of minor children.
However, there is no disclosure about the
nature of those taunts. Admittedly, the
second respondent was married to the first
appellant in the year 2005 and for last
several years since before lodging the FIR,
the complainant had been working and
staying in rented accommodations at
different places. Besides that, the FIR was
lodged on 20.07.2019, just three days after
service of summons of the divorce
proceedings initiated by the first appellant.
In these circumstances, we will have to
consider whether the impugned
proceedings are vexatious and mala fide,
particularly in the context of a matrimonial
dispute where time and again Courts have
been cautioned to be circumspect to obviate
malicious prosecution of family members of
the main accused.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
12. Even if we assume that there are some
allegations of assault and of physical and
mental torture of the complainant, but they
are against the husband. As against the
parents in law, the allegations are only of
extending taunts and of not parting with the
money for managing household expenses.
Specific details in respect of those taunts
have not been disclosed. Moreover, a few
taunts here and there is a part of everyday
life which for happiness of the family are
usually ignored. Interestingly, as per own
allegations in the FIR, the complainant
admits that when she reported those issues
to her parents and uncle, she was
counselled to bear patience. In the
circumstances, in our considered view, no
case to proceed against the parents in law,
namely, the second and third appellant is
made out. In so far as the first appellant is
concerned, there are allegations of physical
and mental torture of the complainant at
his behest. Consequently, the case may
proceed qua the first appellant.
13. Before parting, we would like to observe
that the High Court adopted an extremely
pedantic approach while dealing with the
quashing petition of the appellants. No
doubt, in ordinary course, while exercising
power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the
Court is not required to test the correctness
of the allegations, but in matters arising
from matrimonial disputes, particularly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
where the allegations are levelled after
many years of marriage and, that too, after
one party initiates divorce proceeding
against the other, the Court must be
circumspect in taking the allegations at
their face value. Rather, it must examine,
where allegations of mala fides are there,
whether those allegations have been
levelled with an oblique purpose. More so,
while considering the prayer of the
relatives of the husband."
30. In the present case, the allegations levelled
against the petitioners are general and bald in nature and are
instituted only after the deceased husband had initiated the
divorce proceedings as well as proceeding under the
Guardianship and Wards Act.
31. At this stage it is apposite to note that the
opposite party no.2 had raised the issue of inheritance and claim
of her son as well before this Court. The DV Act, 2005 is a
welfare legislation meant for protection of women who are
subjected to domestic violence. The claim of inheritance or
share in the property of the deceased husband of the opposite
party no.2 can not be adjudicated in a proceeding under the DV
Act, 2005. The opposite party no.2, is at liberty to avail all
remedies available under law to seek redressal of her grievances
with respect to the properties alleged to have been disposed of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
by the petitioners, but a civil dispute relating to inheritance
claim over the properties of the deceased husband of the
opposite party no.2 can not be canvassed and armed with the
provisions of the DV Act, 2005 against her mother-in-law,
brother-in-law and sister-in-law who are the surviving
petitioners in the instant two cases.
32. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Saurabh Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal reported as
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158 while dealing with the inherent
powers of the High Court to quash the proceedings under the
DV Act, 2005 had held as under -
"33. Now, the question is what is the scope of
interference under Section 482 with the
proceedings under the DV Act. 2005. We
must make a distinction between
proceedings initiated on the basis of an
application under Section 12(1) of the DV
Act, 2005, which are predominantly of a
civil nature and the proceedings before the
Criminal Court for prosecuting a person
for any offence. Setting criminal law in
motion has very serious consequences
affecting the liberty of a human being, as
the person against whom criminal law is
set in motion can be arrested and sentenced
to undergo imprisonment.
34. We have already referred to the objects and
reasons of the DV Act, 2005, which are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
reproduced in the decision of this Court in
the case of Kunapareddy alias Nookal a
Shanka Balaji v. Kunapareddy Swarna
Kumar. The basic object of the DV Act,
2005, is to protect women from being
victims of domestic violence and also to
prevent the occurrence of domestic violence
in society. It seeks to protect the right of
women to reside in their matrimonial home
or shared household. Therefore, there is a
provision for passing a Residence Order
under Section 19. Section 18 provides for
granting Protection Orders, which are
essentially to prevent the commission of
acts of domestic violence against women.
The orders which can be passed under
Section 20 are with the object of
compensating a woman for loss caused due
to domestic violence. The custody orders
regarding children are also essentially to
prevent domestic violence. Even Section 22
provides for passing compensation orders
for the injuries, including mental torture
and emotional distress, caused by acts of
domestic violence. If a complaint is
entertained under Section 12(1), the erring
respondent cannot be punished as is
understood in criminal law. He can be
subjected to various orders as provided in
Sections 18 to 23. A respondent in the
application can be prosecuted only if he
commits a breach of a protection order or
an interim protection order. Therefore, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
consequences of entertaining an
application under Section 12(1) are not as
drastic as the consequences of setting
criminal law in motion. No doubt, orders
that can be passed under the DV Act, 2005.
can also be very drastic, but in proceedings
under Section 12(1), a respondent cannot
be sentenced to suffer imprisonment or a
fine as in a criminal trial.
35. When it comes to exercise of power under
Section 482 of the CrPC in relation to
application under Section 12(1), the High
Court has to keep in mind the fact that the
DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation
specially enacted to give justice to those
women who suffer from domestic violence
and for preventing acts of domestic
violence. Therefore, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC
for quashing proceedings under Section
12(1), the High Court should be very slow
and circumspect. Interference can be made
only when the case is clearly of gross
illegality or gross abuse of the process of
law. Generally, the High Court must adopt
a hands-off approach while dealing with
proceedings under Section 482 for
quashing an application under Section
12(1). Unless the High Courts show
restraint in the exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the CrPC while
dealing with a prayer for quashing the
proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005,
will be defeated.
36. We must also note here that against an order
passed by a learned Magistrate, there is an
appeal provided under Section 29 to the
Court of Session. In contrast, generally,
there is no remedy of appeal available
against an order taking cognisance of an
offence or an order issuing process. This is
another reason why the High Court should
exercise caution when exercising its
inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings
under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, 2005.
37. There are decisions of the High Courts
taking a view that the jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC is not available to
quash proceedings of an application under
Section 12(1) of DV Act, 2005. The
decisions are primarily based on the
premise that proceedings under Section
12(1) are predominantly of a civil nature.
The said view is not correct for the reasons
set out earlier.
38. Before we part with this Judgment, we must
mention here that one of us (Abhay S. Oka,
J) is a party to a Judgment dated 27nd
October, 2016 of the Bombay High Court in
Writ Petition 2473 of 2016 in which the
view taken is that remedy under Section
482 of the CrPC is not available for
quashing the proceedings under Section
12(1) of the DV Act, 2005. This view was
found to be incorrect by a full Bench of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
same High Court. As judges, we are duty-
bound to correct our mistakes in properly
constituted proceedings. Even for Judges,
the learning process always continues.
39. To conclude, the view taken in the impugned
order of the High Court that a petition
under Section 482 of the CrPC for
challenging the proceedings emanating
from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is
not maintainable, is not the correct view.
We hold that High Courts can exercise
power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section
528 of the BNSS) for quashing the
proceedings emanating from the
application under Section 12(1) of the DV
Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the
learned Magistrate. However, considering
the object of the DV Act, 2005, the High
Courts should exercise caution and
circumspection when dealing with an
application under Section 12(1). Normally,
interference under Section 482 is
warranted only in the case of gross
illegality or injustice."
33. From the records, it appears that the
petitioners including the deceased husband of the opposite party
no.2 and his brother had partitioned long back i.e. on
17.10.1982. Further, all the relevant documents including the
policy papers of the deceased husband and a demand draft of
Rs.10,00,000/- prepared in favour of the son of the opposite
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
party no.2 have been handed over to the opposite party no.2 in
course of hearing of the quashing petition, as indicated above.
34. From the facts of the case, it appears that the
present case has been filed under the Domestic Violence Act
after the deceased husband had filed the divorce case as well as
a proceeding under the Guardianship and Wards Act. Further,
the opposite party no.2 had initiated this proceeding under the
Domestic Violence Act after filing a criminal case under section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
35. In the opinion of this Court, the present
proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act has been filed by
the opposite party no.2 only with a view to exert pressure upon
the petitioners. The criminal proceeding cannot be used as a tool
to exert pressure upon the petitioners for extracting money when
the husband of the opposite party no.2 had already partitioned
and got his share in the ancestral property.
36. Considering the fact that the criminal
proceeding against the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the
opposite party no.2 has already been quashed by this Court,
coupled with the fact that the claim of the opposite party no.2
under the Domestic Violence Act cannot be sustained in view of
the conspectus of decisions and the discussions made herein
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14545 of 2015 dt.15-07-2025
above particularly the fact that the deceased husband and his
brother were already partitioned way back in the year 1982
itself, and the allegations against the mother-in-law of the
opposite party no.2 are general and non-specific in nature
therefore the same could not be sustained in the eyes of the law.
The claim of the opposite party no.2 with regard to the
inheritance of her son in the property of his father cannot be
adjudicated in a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act.
37. In view of the above discussions, these
applications are allowed. Accordingly, the entire proceedings
arising out of the Domestic Violence Case No.02 of 2011
pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Patna, is hereby quashed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Pawan/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 18.07.2025
Transmission Date 18.07.2025
