Mere Visits Not Sufficient To Constitute Residence In Shared Household: Bombay HC Quashes Domestic Violence Case Against A Married Sister In Law

It will be beneficial to refer to the decision of of this Court (Aurangabad Bench) in Criminal Application No.4281 of 1999 (Avinash s/o. Rangnath Bhokare vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors), where in the learned Single Judge was considering an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed by the Applicant which included the married sister-in- law and has held that it would be sheer abuse of process of law that merely because they sometimes visited their parental house, they were sharing the household with the aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act so as to constitute a domestic relationship as defined under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act. {Para 26}

27. In view of the discussion above, in my view, there was no subsisting domestic relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent No 1 and the Petitioner could not have been arrayed as Respondent in the D.V. application. The mere visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household. Even otherwise considering the pleadings in the applications read with the reliefs, there is no case of domestic violence made out qua the Petitioner.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Writ Petition (ST.) No. 18350 of 2023

Decided On: 14.02.2024

Kinjal  Vs. Disha

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

 Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:7359 MANU/MH/0892/2024.

Print Page

Whether the court can issue a process under the DV Act against sister in law of a woman if she frequently visits her parents' house?

The Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja (2021) 1 SCC 414, with respect to the definition of shared household in the DV Act, has observed inter alia as follows:-

“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.”8

15. While the above observations of the Court are in the context of the place of residence of the “aggrieved person”, it would equally apply to the identification of those who may be properly impleaded as respondents on the basis of residence in the shared household. Just as the woman living fleetingly or casually at different places, would not convert those places into a “shared household”, the visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency or the intention to treat the premises as shared household, would not render them as members of the “shared household”.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 

CRL.M.C. 1817/2022 

BHARTI ANAND  Vs SUSHANT ANAND AND ORS 

 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK J

Date of Decision: 26.04.2022

Print Page

When prosecution U/S 498A of IPC is liable to quashed against sister in laws?

 Despite our conclusion recorded hereinabove, in
respect of the first contention advanced by the learned senior
counsel for the appellants, it is important to refer to his
second submission also. It was the pointed contention of the
learned counsel for the appellants, that appellant nos. 4, 5
and 6, namely, Bhavana Vershney, Renu Gupta and Tulika Jaiswal,
are all sisters-in-law of respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta. In
that view of the matter, they are the sisters of the husband of
respondent no.2 - Mukul Gupta. We were informed, that
appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6 are all married and living
independently. They are not residing with any of the appellant
nos. 1 to 3. Since they are married, and living independently
in different places, they had no concern with the relationship
of respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta with appellant nos. 1 to 3.
Further more, our attention was also invited to the fact, that
no clear allegations have been levelled by respondent no.2 -
Sonia Gupta against any of the appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6. Even
during the course of hearing, respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta,
who entered appearance in person, did not contest the aforesaid
factual position. Her only submission, during the course of
hearing was, that her three sisters-in-law had visited the
matrimonial house of respondent no.2, on the occasion of 'Grah
Parvesh', and the 'Naming Ceremony' of her daughter. We are of
the view, that the visit of the three sisters-in-law of
respondent no.2 - Sonia Gupta, on the above two occasions were

for celebration, and cannot be treated as occasions where they
harassed respondent no.2. In any case, in the absence of any
material on the record of this case, relating to harassment on
the above two occasions, we are satisfied, that the proceeding
initiated against appellant nos. 4, 5 and 6, consequent upon
the registration of the first information report by respondent
no.2 - Sonia Gupta on 10.04.2002, was not justified. The same
deserves to be quashed. The same is accordingly hereby
quashed.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 128 OF 2011
Ram Saran Varshney and others 
v
State of Uttar Pradesh and another 
Dated;February 05, 2016.
Citation;(2016)3 SCC724

JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.

Print Page