Bombay High Court Quashes DV Case for Lack of Domestic Relationship
Aurangabad, Maharashtra – December 13, 2023:
In a significant ruling that reinforces the foundational criteria for filing complaints under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act), the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings against Mohan Mangu Rathod and others, citing the absence of a “domestic relationship” with the complainant.
The decision came in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1391 of 2023, where the petitioners challenged the maintainability of DV proceedings initiated against them by Ujwala Sandip Rathod, the respondent. The petitioners contended that they never shared a household or any form of domestic relationship with the respondent, which is a mandatory precondition under Section 2 of the DV Act.
Provisions of the D.V. Act defines aggrieved person. Section 2(a) of
the D.V. Act reads thus:
“aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.”
. It further defined domestic relationship under Section 2(f), which
reads thus:
“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.”
Justice R. M. Joshi, presiding over the case, noted that under Section 2(a) and 2(f) of the DV Act, an “aggrieved person” must be, or must have been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent—defined as living together in a shared household at any point of time, by way of consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as family members living together in a joint family.
The Court observed:
“Perusal of application filed by Respondent before Magistrate shows that there is no averment that petitioners herein ever lived with Respondent in aforestated relationships and are in domestic relationship with the respondent.”
Highlighting that the lack of such a relationship renders the proceedings untenable, Justice Joshi held that allowing the case to continue would amount to an abuse of the court’s process. The Court, therefore, allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners.
This ruling reaffirms that mere allegations without the essential legal requirement of a domestic relationship cannot form the basis for action under the DV Act. It also sets a precedent for safeguarding individuals from frivolous or misdirected litigation under the guise of domestic violence.
