In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court ruled that occasional visits to the shared household cannot establish a domestic relationship, especially when such visits lack permanency and held that the married sister-in-law cannot be held liable for domestic violence allegations under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The case stemmed when the respondent filed an application for claiming relief under sections 17, 18 20 and 22 of the D.V. Act. However, the same was dismissed by the Metropolitan Magistrate considering the definition of ‘Respondent’ under the Act and held that the suit is not maintainable at all as both do not come under the meaning of the term ‘domestic relationship’.
However, the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate was overturned by the Session Court which held that it is not important whether the Petitioner and the Respondent have a domestic relationship. The court placed reliance on the PRABHA TYAGI V. KAMLESH DEVI (2022)8 SCC 90 and ALI HAMID DARUWALA V. MRS. NAHID RISHAD COOPER & ORS.
Mr Joshi, representing the petitioner, argued that the petitioner and the respondent didn’t live together in the shared household, as the petitioner resided in her matrimonial house. There was no domestic relationship between them as defined by Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act. It was contended that all the allegations were general and lacked specific acts attributed to her. Spending her whole day at a shared household due to its proximity to her own matrimonial house and the demise of her mother-in-law cannot constitute a subsisting domestic relationship.
On the other hand, Mr Desai, representing the Respondent argued that the proceedings were not malicious. It also emphasised that the petitioner used to spend her entire day in the shared household. The learned counsel counters that specific acts constituting domestic violence have been against the petitioner in the application.
The court focused on the definition of the terms: aggrieved person, domestic relationship, respondent and shared household and held that living in a shared household whether in the present or in the past is the sine qua non for the existence of “ domestic relationship”. The pleading concerning the visits of the petitioners does not indicate that a domestic relationship has been developed between the parties. It found that the petitioner and the aggrieved person never lived together in the shared household, leading to the dismissal of the allegations against the petitioner.
The judgement highlighted that no specific allegations concerning domestic violence were contended by the respondent. It noted that the allegations against the petitioner were general and lacked specificity. Therefore, the decision was set aside and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate was revived. This ruling highlights the scope of the liability under the D.V. Act.
CASE NAME: KINJAL JAYESH MEHTA V. DISHA JIMIT SANGHVI
NAME: SHOBITA, COURSE: B.A.LL.B COLLEGE: GURU NANAK DEV UNIVERSITY, AMRITSAR, INTERN UNDER LEGAL VIDHIYA
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments