Case Title: Krishnawati Devi And 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. and Another
“This Court came across number of cases where just to harass the family of husband or the person in domestic relationship, aggrieved party used to implicate the relatives of other side who are not even living or lived with the aggrieved person in shared household and they have been residing at separate places. Therefore, courts below while issuing notice u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act must look into this fact from the perusal of the application filed u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act along with other available record including the report of the Protection Officer, if available on record,” it said.
It added that the concerned courts before issuing notices to the persons impleaded as respondents in the application under Domestic Violence Act should satisfy the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in paragraph no. 13 of the present judgment which pertained to conditions that must be satisfied for holding a person liable u/s 3 of Domestic Violence Act.
Court held that the allegations against applicant nos. 2 to 6 lacked merit and quashed the proceedings against them. However, it upheld the case against the husband and mother-in-law, noting that they had been in a shared household with the complainant and faced specific allegations of harassment and dowry demands. Court directed that the trial proceedings against them be expedited and concluded within 60 days.
