Misuse Of DV Act | Brother-In-Law, Sister-In-Law Cannot Be Dragged Into Court Without Domestic Relationship Or Shared Household: Delhi Court
Can matrimonial relatives be forced to face a DV case when they never lived with the complainant? Delhi Court explains the crucial legal requirement while deleting a sister-in-law and brother-in-law from the proceedings.
DELHI: A Delhi court has allowed an appeal filed by a woman’s sister-in-law and brother-in-law and ordered their deletion from proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, holding that the complainant had never lived with them in a shared household or entered into a domestic relationship with them.
Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Sumedh Kumar Sethi, ASJ-05, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, set aside the Trial Court’s order dated September 3, 2024, which had rejected the appellants’ request to remove their names from the DV Act proceedings.
The appellants were the respondent's sister-in-law and brother-in-law. They argued that they had been living separately since their marriage in 1994, while the respondent married Vandana Rao’s brother in 2004.
According to the appeal, the respondent had never lived with the appellants in a shared household. The appellants also argued that earlier complaints contained no allegation against Vandana Rao and only one allegation of threat against Pankaj Rao. They contended that continuing the proceedings against them would cause unnecessary mental agony and suffering.
The Trial Court had earlier relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, taking the view that respondents need not actually be residing with the complainant when domestic violence is alleged.
The appellate court, however, held that the Supreme Court ruling had to be read in its entirety. Referring to Prabha Tyagi, the judgment reproduced the principle that “domestic relationship” includes not only an existing relationship but also a past relationship between persons who “have at any point of time lived together” in a shared household.
The Supreme Court ruling quoted in the judgment further considered:
“Whether it is mandatory for the aggrieved person to reside with those persons against whom the allegations have been levied at the point of commission of violence?”
It held that actual residence with such persons at the time of the alleged domestic violence was not mandatory where the requirements of the DV Act were otherwise satisfied.
The judgment also quoted the question:
“Whether there should be a subsisting domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the person against whom the relief is claimed?”
The Supreme Court had clarified that a domestic relationship need not continue on the date when the DV Act application is filed. A past domestic relationship can also be sufficient where the parties had lived together or had the relevant right to live in a shared household.
Applying that law, the appellate court found a crucial difference in the present case. Even according to the respondent’s own allegations, she had never entered into a domestic relationship with the two appellants and had never lived with them in a shared household at any point.
The court noted that the respondent herself claimed that her mother-in-law and father-in-law were staying in the matrimonial home while she had been living with her daughters in another flat in the same complex for around three years before the deaths of her husband and father-in-law.
The court further noted that the appellants were not alleged to have subsequently started living in the matrimonial property.
The respondent had alleged that the appellants took her mother-in-law with them, locked the matrimonial house and that issues relating to her jewellery remained. The appellate court held that she could pursue other remedies available under law for such grievances, but these facts did not establish the necessary domestic relationship with the appellants under the PWDV Act.
The court concluded that the respondent was in a domestic relationship with her mother-in-law, who was already a party before the Trial Court, but not with the Appellants
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the September 3, 2024 order was set aside, and Appellants were deleted from the array of parties in the domestic violence proceedings.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Section | What It Means | Application In This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Allows an aggrieved woman to approach the Magistrate seeking reliefs available under the DV Act. | The respondent had initiated proceedings under Section 12. The appellants sought deletion of their names from those proceedings. |
| Section 2(f), DV Act | Defines a “domestic relationship” between persons who live or have, at any point, lived together in a shared household and are connected through specified relationships. | The court found that the respondent had never lived with the appellants in a shared household and therefore no domestic relationship existed between them. |
| Section 2(s), DV Act | Defines “shared household.” | Whether the respondent and appellants had ever shared a household was central to deciding whether DV Act proceedings could continue against them. |
| Section 3, DV Act | Defines what amounts to domestic violence under the Act. | The appellants argued that the complaint and documents did not disclose domestic violence against them within the statutory framework. |
| Section 17, DV Act | Recognises an aggrieved woman’s right to reside in a shared household. | Referred to in Prabha Tyagi while explaining when a woman may seek DV Act relief even if she is not presently residing with the respondent. |
| Section 28(1), DV Act | Provides the procedural framework applicable to specified DV Act proceedings. | Discussed in the precedents relied upon while explaining the procedural character of a Section 12 application. |
| Section 28(2), DV Act | Gives the court flexibility to devise its own procedure for disposal of applications under Section 12 and certain other proceedings. | Cited through Dr. P. Padmanathan while discussing preliminary objections and deletion of improperly joined parties. |
| Section 29, DV Act | Provides an appeal against an order passed by the Magistrate under the DV Act. | The judgment referred to the appellate remedy available to an aggrieved party in DV Act proceedings. |
| Order I Rule 10(2), CPC | Permits deletion of a party who has been improperly joined in proceedings. | The precedent relied upon by the appellants recognised this principle as a basis for deleting improperly joined respondents in DV Act proceedings. |
| Order VI Rule 17, CPC | Deals with amendment of pleadings. | Discussed through precedent to explain the procedural flexibility available in DV Act proceedings. |
| Article 227, Constitution of India | Gives High Courts supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals. | Referred to in the Madras High Court precedent laying down procedural guidelines for DV Act cases. |
| Section 204, CrPC | Concerns issuance of process by a Magistrate. | The cited precedent explained that issuance of process in the conventional Section 204 CrPC sense does not operate in the same manner in Section 12 DV Act proceedings. |
| Section 2(d), CrPC | Defines a criminal “complaint.” | The cited Supreme Court discussion distinguished a criminal complaint under CrPC from an application under Section 12 of the DV Act. |
| Section 190(1)(a), CrPC | Concerns a Magistrate taking cognizance upon receiving a complaint. | The cited precedent held that this cognizance procedure does not apply in the same manner to a Section 12 DV Act application. |
| Section 483, CrPC | Referred to in the cited Madras High Court judgment concerning supervisory powers over Judicial Magistrates. | It formed part of the precedent the appellants relied upon regarding procedure in DV Act cases. |
| Rule 2(b), DV Rules | Defines a complaint under the Domestic Violence Rules. | Used in the cited precedent to distinguish a complaint to a Protection Officer from a Section 12 application before a Magistrate. |
| Rule 4(1), DV Rules | Concerns a complaint made to a Protection Officer. | Referred to while explaining the procedural distinction between a DV Rules complaint and a Section 12 application. |
| Rule 6(1), DV Rules | Provides for an application under Section 12 in the prescribed form. | Cited to explain the nature of proceedings initiated before the Magistrate. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | V & Anr. v. M |
| Case Number | CA No. 263/2024 |
| CNR Number | DLSH01-007116-2024 |
| Court | Court of Additional Sessions Judge-05, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi |
| Judge / Bench | Dr Sumedh Kumar Sethi, Additional Sessions Judge-05 |
| Counsel For Appellants | Tripaksha Litigation through Mr Abhimanyu Kumar and Ms Akriti Anand, Advocates |
| Respondent's Representation | Respondent appeared in person |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- A Man Cannot Be Dragged Into A DV Case Merely Because He Is A Relative By Marriage.
- No Shared Household, No Domestic Relationship — The Basic DV Act Requirement Must Exist.
- Courts Can Delete Relatives Who Have Been Improperly Added To Matrimonial Litigation.
- Family Disputes Cannot Become A Licence To Make Every Relative Fight A DV Case.
- For The Brother-In-Law, The Court Finally Ended Proceedings That Should Not Continue Without The Required Domestic Relationship
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.