Shikha Gupta v. Aditya Mittal) which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge
Case Details
3. The facts of the case as set-forth in the complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 14.05.2024 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are that the marriage of the opposite party No. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 1 on
02.12.2022, however, the applicants herein, father-in-law, mother- in-law, brother-in-law and grandmother-in-law were not satisfied with the gifts offered by the parents of the opposite party No. 2, wife to the in-laws (applicants). It is further alleged that the applicants used to make sarcastic comments while casting an aspersion that the parents of the opposite party no. 2 are not well off and they have not been offered gifts worth the status of the applicants. The allegation is that whatever the opposite party no. 2 used to cook food and offer them then they used to torture and make utterances not called for and throw the food items even the applicant no. 2, who is the brother-in-law used to molest and exhibit indecent behaviour and force the opposite party no. 2 to enter into physical relationship and when the said complaint was made to the in-laws then they uttered that it is not uncommon thing and and administered beating and locked the opposite party no. 2 in a room. Further they used to pressurize the opposite party no. 2 to bring Rs. 10,00,000/- cash and a four wheeler. Despite the fact that the opposite no. 2 used to pray before the applicants not to insist for the said demand but the applicants were become furiated and started maltreating. In para-12 of the complaint, it is also alleged that all types of black-magic used to be administered, pursuant whereto the opposite party no. 2 became unconscious and during the unconscious state, she used to sleep with other persons and when the same was objected then the applicants herein including the husband of the opposite party no. 2 threatened not to utter any word about it and in case, any action is taken by the opposite party no. 2 then she will be done to death. In para 13 of the complaint, it is alleged that on 26.02.2024 with the wedlock of the husband, the opposite party no. 2 was blessed with a daughter, however, the nature of the applicants did not change but consistent demand was made for payment of Rs.10,00,000/- and a four wheeler for dowry. In para 15 of the complaint, it is also alleged that on 07.04.2024, the valuables of the opposite party no. 2 was snatched by the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 along with infant baby was thrown out of the house and a threatening was made that the opposite party no. 2 would be given entry in the house, once the demand is fulfilled.
4. Thus, a prayer was made for grant of relief under Section 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
5. Questioning the complaint, the applicants who happened to be father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and grandmother-in- law have filed the present application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complaint under Domestic Violence Act is not maintainable against the applicants for more than one reason, firstly, at the time of the filing of the complaint, the opposite party No. 2 was not living in the share household and there was no domestic relationship under Section 2(f) and shared household under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act. Submission is that one of the conditions precedent to lodge proceedings under Domestic Violence Act is that at the time of filing of the complaint, the aggrieved persons should be having a domestic relationship and once the opposite party No. 2 as per own saying, was not residing with the applicants on the date of the complaint, the proceedings are not maintainable. Further submission is that the applicants do not answer the definition of the respondents as per Section 2(q) of the Act, as there are no allegations so as to invoke penal provisions, secondly, proceedings under Section 498A, 376, 554, 504, 506, 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act stood initiated against the applicants in the shape of complaint No. 33503 of 2024 but the said complaint was dismissed on
16.01.2024 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Gorakhpur on the premise that the allegation made by the opposite party No. 2 that applicants were baseless.
7. Contention is that the present complaint contains allegations which are not only frivolous but a concocted story in order to settle a score and to harass the applicants. It is also submitted that as per the description given in the array of the parties of the complainant and the respondents in the complaint, the applicants are living and having a separate residence and their place of living is different as she had been married to Aditya Mittal who was working somewhere outside, thus, even the applicants do not answer the description of the respondents under Section 2(q). it is thus prayed that it is a classic case of abuse of process of law and the complaint deserves to be set aside.
8. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the present applications may not be maintainable, particularly, when no order has been passed under chapter IV of the 2005, Act and only notices have been issued, thus, it is always open for the applicants to contest the said proceedings on merit and to satisfy the Court that the opposite party No. 2 is not entitled to the relief. Learned AGA further submits that a perusal of Annexure-6 at page 73 of the paper book, itself shows that the husband of the opposite party No. 2 has himself filed an objection in the said proceedings on
27.02.2025 raising legal and factual grounds which is as Annexure-6 at page 74 of the paper book. Reference has been made in para 18, thus, this Court may not interfere with the present proceedings.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
10. Apparently, in the case in hand, the challenge so raised at the instance of the applicants is to the complaint lodged under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The question which would inevitably arise would be the extent of judicial intervention, particularly, when complaint is being challenged. The first and foremost question is whether the opposite party no. 2 is an aggrieved person or not. Section 2(a) of the Act itself defines "aggrieved person" as 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. Admittedly, the opposite party No. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 grand daughter-in-law of applicant no. 4 and applicant no. 3's sister-in-law. Thus, in view of the allegations contained regarding subjecting to act or domestic violence, she becomes an aggrieved person. Further Section 2(q) of the Act also deals with respondent against whom, allegations have been made to have committed domestic violence. Since as per Section 2(f) of the Act, domestic relationship means, a relationship between two persons who have lived in a shared household whether they are related by marriage or through a relationship of marriage, consanguinity adoption or family members living in a joint family, thus, it can be safely said that there is a domestic relationship between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2. The allegation of the applicants that the opposite party no. 2 is living separately and there is no shared household is concerned, the same is not conceivable at this stage, particularly, in view of the allegations made in para-15 of the application, whereby it is alleged on
07.04.2024, the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and the applicants who are in-laws had thrown out the opposite party no. 2 from their matrimonial house. Since only complaint has been challenged in the present proceedings, thus, this Court is only required to determine as to whether the case can proceed or not in view of allegation in complaint. In view of the nature of the allegations so levelled and the relief has sought, it would not be appropriate for the Court to record a conclusive finding at this stage. Moreover, the question as to whether at the time of the filing of the complaint, the aggrieved person, the opposite party no. 2 being the daughter-in-law is to reside and only then the complaint would be maintainable is out of context, particularly, when the use of the words under Section 2(f) of the Act at any point of time assumes significance as it clearly depicts that a right is to be there to live in the shared accommodation. It is thus clear that right to reside in the shared household cannot be restricted to actual residence at the time of the filing of the complaint.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi in Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2022, decided on 12.05.2022 has observed as under: "30. Further, though, the expression 'shared household' is defined in the context of a household where the person aggrieved lives or has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with respondent, in the context of Sub-Section (1) of Section17, the said expression cannot be restricted only to a household where a person aggrieved resides or at any stage, resided in a domestic relationship. In other words, a woman in a domestic relationship who is not aggrieved, in the sense that who has not been subjected to an act of domestic violence by the respondent, has a right to reside in a shared household. Thus, a mother, daughter, sister, wife, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law or such other categories of women in a domestic relationship have the right to reside in a shared household de hors a right, title or beneficial interest in the same. Therefore, the right of residence of the aforesaid categories of women and such other categories of women in a domestic relationship is guaranteed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 and she cannot be evicted, excluded or thrown out from such a household even in the absence of there being any form of domestic violence. By contrast, Sub-Section (2) of section 17 deals with a narrower right in as much as an aggrieved person who is inevitably a woman and who is subjected to domestic violence shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Thus, the expression 'right to reside in a shared household' has to be given an expansive interpretation, in respect of the aforesaid categories of women including a mother-in-law of a daughter-in-law and other categories of women referred to above who have the right to reside in a shared household.
31. Further, the expression 'the right to reside in a shared household' cannot be restricted to actual residence. In other words, even in the absence of actual residence in the shared household, a woman in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside therein. The aforesaid interpretation can be explained by way of an illustration. If a woman gets married then she acquires the right to reside in the household of her husband which then becomes a shared household within the meaning of the D.V. Act. In India, it is a societal norm for a woman, on her marriage to reside with her husband, unless due to professional, occupational or job commitments, or for other genuine reasons, the husband and wife decide to reside at different locations. Even in a case where the woman in a domestic relationship is residing elsewhere on account of a reasonable cause, she has the right to reside in a shared household. Also a woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship has the right to reside not only in the house of her husband, if it is located in another place which is also a shared household but also in the shared household which may be in a different location in which the family of her husband resides."
12. As regards, the submission so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that already the proceedings under Section 498A, 376, 554, 504, 506, 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act stood decided in favour of the applicants, thus, the proceedings under D.V. Act is not liable to be accepted, particularly, when it is always open for an aggrieved person to initiate proceedings for redressal of the grievances under the D.V. Act.
13. Apart from the same, the Court finds that no order under chapter IV of the 2005 Act has been passed, thus, in case on contest, any order is passed under chapter IV of the Act that it shall be always open for the applicants to challenge the same by filing an appeal under Section 29 or initiating proceedings under Section 25 of the Act. Since prime facie it does not appear to Court that the complaint is not maintainable, thus, this Court does not find to be a fit case for interference. Even otherwise, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 6975 of 2013 (Smt. Suman Mishra v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 31.07.2024 has already held that mere issuance of notice would not be a ground to initiate proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 of the BNSS.
14. Accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands rejected.
15. However, it is open for the applicants to contest the matter while filing a reply as has been filed by the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and to contest the matter and, in case, any orders are passed under chapter IV of the 2005 Act then to challenge the same as per the remedies provided under the Act.
16. The passing of the order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated on the merits of the matter. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 A. Prajapati
3. The facts of the case as set-forth in the complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 14.05.2024 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are that the marriage of the opposite party No. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 1 on
02.12.2022, however, the applicants herein, father-in-law, mother- in-law, brother-in-law and grandmother-in-law were not satisfied with the gifts offered by the parents of the opposite party No. 2, wife to the in-laws (applicants). It is further alleged that the applicants used to make sarcastic comments while casting an aspersion that the parents of the opposite party no. 2 are not well off and they have not been offered gifts worth the status of the applicants. The allegation is that whatever the opposite party no. 2 used to cook food and offer them then they used to torture and make utterances not called for and throw the food items even the applicant no. 2, who is the brother-in-law used to molest and exhibit indecent behaviour and force the opposite party no. 2 to enter into physical relationship and when the said complaint was made to the in-laws then they uttered that it is not uncommon thing and and administered beating and locked the opposite party no. 2 in a room. Further they used to pressurize the opposite party no. 2 to bring Rs. 10,00,000/- cash and a four wheeler. Despite the fact that the opposite no. 2 used to pray before the applicants not to insist for the said demand but the applicants were become furiated and started maltreating. In para-12 of the complaint, it is also alleged that all types of black-magic used to be administered, pursuant whereto the opposite party no. 2 became unconscious and during the unconscious state, she used to sleep with other persons and when the same was objected then the applicants herein including the husband of the opposite party no. 2 threatened not to utter any word about it and in case, any action is taken by the opposite party no. 2 then she will be done to death. In para 13 of the complaint, it is alleged that on 26.02.2024 with the wedlock of the husband, the opposite party no. 2 was blessed with a daughter, however, the nature of the applicants did not change but consistent demand was made for payment of Rs.10,00,000/- and a four wheeler for dowry. In para 15 of the complaint, it is also alleged that on 07.04.2024, the valuables of the opposite party no. 2 was snatched by the applicants and the opposite party no. 2 along with infant baby was thrown out of the house and a threatening was made that the opposite party no. 2 would be given entry in the house, once the demand is fulfilled.
4. Thus, a prayer was made for grant of relief under Section 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
5. Questioning the complaint, the applicants who happened to be father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and grandmother-in- law have filed the present application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the complaint under Domestic Violence Act is not maintainable against the applicants for more than one reason, firstly, at the time of the filing of the complaint, the opposite party No. 2 was not living in the share household and there was no domestic relationship under Section 2(f) and shared household under Section 2(s) of the Domestic Violence Act. Submission is that one of the conditions precedent to lodge proceedings under Domestic Violence Act is that at the time of filing of the complaint, the aggrieved persons should be having a domestic relationship and once the opposite party No. 2 as per own saying, was not residing with the applicants on the date of the complaint, the proceedings are not maintainable. Further submission is that the applicants do not answer the definition of the respondents as per Section 2(q) of the Act, as there are no allegations so as to invoke penal provisions, secondly, proceedings under Section 498A, 376, 554, 504, 506, 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act stood initiated against the applicants in the shape of complaint No. 33503 of 2024 but the said complaint was dismissed on
16.01.2024 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Gorakhpur on the premise that the allegation made by the opposite party No. 2 that applicants were baseless.
7. Contention is that the present complaint contains allegations which are not only frivolous but a concocted story in order to settle a score and to harass the applicants. It is also submitted that as per the description given in the array of the parties of the complainant and the respondents in the complaint, the applicants are living and having a separate residence and their place of living is different as she had been married to Aditya Mittal who was working somewhere outside, thus, even the applicants do not answer the description of the respondents under Section 2(q). it is thus prayed that it is a classic case of abuse of process of law and the complaint deserves to be set aside.
8. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that the present applications may not be maintainable, particularly, when no order has been passed under chapter IV of the 2005, Act and only notices have been issued, thus, it is always open for the applicants to contest the said proceedings on merit and to satisfy the Court that the opposite party No. 2 is not entitled to the relief. Learned AGA further submits that a perusal of Annexure-6 at page 73 of the paper book, itself shows that the husband of the opposite party No. 2 has himself filed an objection in the said proceedings on
27.02.2025 raising legal and factual grounds which is as Annexure-6 at page 74 of the paper book. Reference has been made in para 18, thus, this Court may not interfere with the present proceedings.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
10. Apparently, in the case in hand, the challenge so raised at the instance of the applicants is to the complaint lodged under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The question which would inevitably arise would be the extent of judicial intervention, particularly, when complaint is being challenged. The first and foremost question is whether the opposite party no. 2 is an aggrieved person or not. Section 2(a) of the Act itself defines "aggrieved person" as 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. Admittedly, the opposite party No. 2 is the daughter-in-law of the applicant Nos. 1 and 2 grand daughter-in-law of applicant no. 4 and applicant no. 3's sister-in-law. Thus, in view of the allegations contained regarding subjecting to act or domestic violence, she becomes an aggrieved person. Further Section 2(q) of the Act also deals with respondent against whom, allegations have been made to have committed domestic violence. Since as per Section 2(f) of the Act, domestic relationship means, a relationship between two persons who have lived in a shared household whether they are related by marriage or through a relationship of marriage, consanguinity adoption or family members living in a joint family, thus, it can be safely said that there is a domestic relationship between the applicants and the opposite party no. 2. The allegation of the applicants that the opposite party no. 2 is living separately and there is no shared household is concerned, the same is not conceivable at this stage, particularly, in view of the allegations made in para-15 of the application, whereby it is alleged on
07.04.2024, the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and the applicants who are in-laws had thrown out the opposite party no. 2 from their matrimonial house. Since only complaint has been challenged in the present proceedings, thus, this Court is only required to determine as to whether the case can proceed or not in view of allegation in complaint. In view of the nature of the allegations so levelled and the relief has sought, it would not be appropriate for the Court to record a conclusive finding at this stage. Moreover, the question as to whether at the time of the filing of the complaint, the aggrieved person, the opposite party no. 2 being the daughter-in-law is to reside and only then the complaint would be maintainable is out of context, particularly, when the use of the words under Section 2(f) of the Act at any point of time assumes significance as it clearly depicts that a right is to be there to live in the shared accommodation. It is thus clear that right to reside in the shared household cannot be restricted to actual residence at the time of the filing of the complaint.
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi in Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 2022, decided on 12.05.2022 has observed as under: "30. Further, though, the expression 'shared household' is defined in the context of a household where the person aggrieved lives or has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with respondent, in the context of Sub-Section (1) of Section17, the said expression cannot be restricted only to a household where a person aggrieved resides or at any stage, resided in a domestic relationship. In other words, a woman in a domestic relationship who is not aggrieved, in the sense that who has not been subjected to an act of domestic violence by the respondent, has a right to reside in a shared household. Thus, a mother, daughter, sister, wife, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law or such other categories of women in a domestic relationship have the right to reside in a shared household de hors a right, title or beneficial interest in the same. Therefore, the right of residence of the aforesaid categories of women and such other categories of women in a domestic relationship is guaranteed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 17 and she cannot be evicted, excluded or thrown out from such a household even in the absence of there being any form of domestic violence. By contrast, Sub-Section (2) of section 17 deals with a narrower right in as much as an aggrieved person who is inevitably a woman and who is subjected to domestic violence shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent except in accordance with the procedure established by law. Thus, the expression 'right to reside in a shared household' has to be given an expansive interpretation, in respect of the aforesaid categories of women including a mother-in-law of a daughter-in-law and other categories of women referred to above who have the right to reside in a shared household.
31. Further, the expression 'the right to reside in a shared household' cannot be restricted to actual residence. In other words, even in the absence of actual residence in the shared household, a woman in a domestic relationship can enforce her right to reside therein. The aforesaid interpretation can be explained by way of an illustration. If a woman gets married then she acquires the right to reside in the household of her husband which then becomes a shared household within the meaning of the D.V. Act. In India, it is a societal norm for a woman, on her marriage to reside with her husband, unless due to professional, occupational or job commitments, or for other genuine reasons, the husband and wife decide to reside at different locations. Even in a case where the woman in a domestic relationship is residing elsewhere on account of a reasonable cause, she has the right to reside in a shared household. Also a woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship has the right to reside not only in the house of her husband, if it is located in another place which is also a shared household but also in the shared household which may be in a different location in which the family of her husband resides."
12. As regards, the submission so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that already the proceedings under Section 498A, 376, 554, 504, 506, 406 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act stood decided in favour of the applicants, thus, the proceedings under D.V. Act is not liable to be accepted, particularly, when it is always open for an aggrieved person to initiate proceedings for redressal of the grievances under the D.V. Act.
13. Apart from the same, the Court finds that no order under chapter IV of the 2005 Act has been passed, thus, in case on contest, any order is passed under chapter IV of the Act that it shall be always open for the applicants to challenge the same by filing an appeal under Section 29 or initiating proceedings under Section 25 of the Act. Since prime facie it does not appear to Court that the complaint is not maintainable, thus, this Court does not find to be a fit case for interference. Even otherwise, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 6975 of 2013 (Smt. Suman Mishra v. State of U.P. and others), decided on 31.07.2024 has already held that mere issuance of notice would not be a ground to initiate proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ 528 of the BNSS.
14. Accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands rejected.
15. However, it is open for the applicants to contest the matter while filing a reply as has been filed by the husband of the opposite party no. 2 and to contest the matter and, in case, any orders are passed under chapter IV of the 2005 Act then to challenge the same as per the remedies provided under the Act.
16. The passing of the order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated on the merits of the matter. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 A. Prajapati