High Court · 2025

court below issued notices to the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint so lodged by the opposite party no. 2 is bound to fall particularly when the opposite party no. 2 is herself staying/residing in the house in question. He further submits that the applicants had been unnecessarily made respondent under Section 2(q) of the Act. Submission is that multiple proceedings have been lodged as against summoning of the applicant no. 6 under Section 506, 354, 498A of the IPC and others under Section 506, 498A IPC in Case No. 22443 of 2023 in Case Crime No. 2267 of 2021, the applicants had to take shelter while knocking the doors of this Court while filing Application u/s 482 No. 6519 of 2023 wherein they were accorded interim protection and so much so Case Crime No. 3526 of 2023 was also lodged wherein the applicant no. 1 and others were summoned under Section 506 and interim protection was accorded by this Court in Application u/s 482 no. 29748 of 2024 on on 12.09.2024. It is further contended that there happens to be a civil suit instituted by the applicant nos. 2 & 3 being O.S. No. 773 of 2022 before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Ghaziabad, wherein injunction has been sought with respect to the property. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is, thus, that the present proceedings have been initiated by the opposite party no. 2 just as a counterblast and the said proceedings are not maintainable in the eyes of law in that regard.

4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that no orders under Chapter IV of 2025 Act has been passed as only notices have been issued and as per page 32 of the paper book, there happens to be an order that the applicant no. 1 has himself put in appearance and he has been accorded time to file its response.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. Apparently, the opposite party no. 2 happens to be the daughter- in-law, thus, she comes within the definition of Section 2(a) being the aggrieved person. As regards the domestic relationship is concerned, the case of the opposite party no. 2 also stands covered under 2(f) as the domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who living or have at any point of time live together in a shared household when they are related by false animosity marriage of true relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption etc.

7. Further, in view of the fact that the opposite party no. 2 is an aggrieved person as per Section 2(a) of the Act, thus, opposite party no. 2 are termed respondent under Section 2(q). So far as the contention so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are already residing in one of the portion of the house and she has on incorrect facts and just in order to harass the applicants, instituted the proceedings is concerned. Suffice it to say that Section 17 provides right to reside in a shared household and the question as to whether she is actually living or not is a question of fact which cannot be gone at this stage when only notices have been issued. Moreover, the remedy available under the Domestic Violence Act is an addition to the remedy which is available under the civil courts. Since, no orders under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act has been passed, thus, it would not be appropriate for this Court to throttle the proceedings at this stage particularly when notices have been issued. In case, any order under Chapter IV of the Are are passed then it is always open for the applicants to challenge the same by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the Act.

8. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the applicant no. 1 has put in appearance before the court below and time has been accorded to file response, thus, it would be appropriate for the applicants to contest the proceedings therein on merits and this Court while taking all legal and factual grounds and the Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law.

9.With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Rajesh RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

court below issued notices to the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the complaint so lodged by the opposite party no. 2 is bound to fall particularly when the opposite party no. 2 is herself staying/residing in the house in question. He further submits that the applicants had been unnecessarily made respondent under Section 2(q) of the Act. Submission is that multiple proceedings have been lodged as against summoning of the applicant no. 6 under Section 506, 354, 498A of the IPC and others under Section 506, 498A IPC in Case No. 22443 of 2023 in Case Crime No. 2267 of 2021, the applicants had to take shelter while knocking the doors of this Court while filing Application u/s 482 No. 6519 of 2023 wherein they were accorded interim protection and so much so Case Crime No. 3526 of 2023 was also lodged wherein the applicant no. 1 and others were summoned under Section 506 and interim protection was accorded by this Court in Application u/s 482 no. 29748 of 2024 on on 12.09.2024. It is further contended that there happens to be a civil suit instituted by the applicant nos. 2 & 3 being O.S. No. 773 of 2022 before the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Ghaziabad, wherein injunction has been sought with respect to the property. Contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is, thus, that the present proceedings have been initiated by the opposite party no. 2 just as a counterblast and the said proceedings are not maintainable in the eyes of law in that regard.

4. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that no orders under Chapter IV of 2025 Act has been passed as only notices have been issued and as per page 32 of the paper book, there happens to be an order that the applicant no. 1 has himself put in appearance and he has been accorded time to file its response.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. Apparently, the opposite party no. 2 happens to be the daughter- in-law, thus, she comes within the definition of Section 2(a) being the aggrieved person. As regards the domestic relationship is concerned, the case of the opposite party no. 2 also stands covered under 2(f) as the domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who living or have at any point of time live together in a shared household when they are related by false animosity marriage of true relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption etc.

7. Further, in view of the fact that the opposite party no. 2 is an aggrieved person as per Section 2(a) of the Act, thus, opposite party no. 2 are termed respondent under Section 2(q). So far as the contention so sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are already residing in one of the portion of the house and she has on incorrect facts and just in order to harass the applicants, instituted the proceedings is concerned. Suffice it to say that Section 17 provides right to reside in a shared household and the question as to whether she is actually living or not is a question of fact which cannot be gone at this stage when only notices have been issued. Moreover, the remedy available under the Domestic Violence Act is an addition to the remedy which is available under the civil courts. Since, no orders under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act has been passed, thus, it would not be appropriate for this Court to throttle the proceedings at this stage particularly when notices have been issued. In case, any order under Chapter IV of the Are are passed then it is always open for the applicants to challenge the same by way of an appeal under Section 29 of the Act.

8. Nonetheless, the Court finds that the applicant no. 1 has put in appearance before the court below and time has been accorded to file response, thus, it would be appropriate for the applicants to contest the proceedings therein on merits and this Court while taking all legal and factual grounds and the Court has no reasons to disbelieve that the same shall be considered strictly in accordance with law.

9.With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Rajesh RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad