The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, quashed proceedings against certain family members of the husband in a domestic violence case while upholding the case against the husband and mother-in-law. The Court emphasized that implicating distant relatives without substantive proof of a shared household amounts to an abuse of the legal process.
Background of the Case
The case originated from matrimonial discord between the aggrieved party and her husband. Following their strained relationship, the aggrieved party filed a case under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the husband and his family members, including his mother and married sisters.
The applicants, including the mother-in-law and five other relatives, moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to quash the proceedings in the case pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Definition of ‘Respondent’ under Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act: The applicants argued that certain family members, namely the married sisters and their spouses, did not reside in a shared household and, therefore, could not be categorized as respondents under the Domestic Violence Act.
2. Scope of ‘Domestic Relationship’ under Section 2(f): The Court examined whether all accused parties were in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved woman.
3. Misuse of Domestic Violence Laws: The Court acknowledged a growing trend of implicating multiple family members in such cases without substantial evidence.
Observations and Ruling by the High Court
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, after hearing arguments from both sides, observed that under Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, only those who have lived in a shared household with the aggrieved woman can be classified as respondents.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Hiral P. Harsora and Others vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Others (2016) 10 SCC 165, the High Court reiterated that the definition of a ‘respondent’ includes only those in a domestic relationship who have committed an act of domestic violence.
The Court made a crucial observation:
“This Court came across a number of cases where just to harass the family of the husband or the person in domestic relationship, aggrieved party used to implicate the relatives of the other side who are not even living or have lived with the aggrieved person in a shared household.”
The Court held that the applicants, being married sisters and their spouses residing separately, could not be considered respondents under the Act. Consequently, their involvement in the proceedings was deemed malicious and an abuse of the court process. The High Court quashed the case against them.
However, the Court ruled that proceedings against the mother-in-law and husband would continue, as there were specific allegations of domestic violence, including dowry-related harassment.
Final Directions
The High Court issued the following orders:
– The proceedings against certain family members were quashed.
– The trial against the husband and mother-in-law was allowed to continue.
– The trial court was directed to expedite the case and conclude it within 60 days.
– The Registrar (Compliance) was instructed to ensure the prompt communication of the order to the concerned court.
