State of U.P. and Another v. Counsel for

1. Heard Sri Satya Narayan Gupta along with Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri S.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of the impugned summoning order dated 13.04.2022 as well as interim maintenance order dated 12.01.2024 passed by Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No. 2/Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in Case No. 213 of 2022 (Mamta Vs Arvind and others) Under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act, related to Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur, Pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No. 2/Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.

3. The case of the applicants is that a complaint stood preferred by the opposite party no. 2 on 10.01.2022 against the applicants who happened to be husband, father-in-law, unmarried Nanad, married sisters and her husbands, with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 1 and in the marriage, expenditure worth Rs. 12 lakhs were incurred and gifts and offerings of domestic articles i.e. gold and silver, three lakhs rupees cash and a motorcycle was offered and with the wedlock, a baby was born on 01.06.2015, however, on account of non-fulfillment of a four wheeler from the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence and on 27.04.2021, the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 also expired and on 31.08.2021, the opposite party no. 2 was thrown out of her matrimonial house and she was deprived of her streedhan and other valuables. On 12.01.2024, an order came to be passed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act by the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No. 2/Judicial Magistrate, Hapur awarding interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- against the applicant no. 1, husband.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that so far as the applicants are concerned, they happened to be applicant no. 1 and 2 NA528 No. 32274 of 2025 applicant no. 2 are husband and father-in-law, however, the other applicants are unmarried sister, married sisters and her husbands of the opposite party no. 2 and thus there happens to be no domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act and there is no shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act and further the opposite party no. 2 does not answer the description of an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act and applicants herein cannot be termed to be the respondents against whom allegations of committing of domestic violence can be made so as to make them respondent under Section 2(r) of the Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that whatever allegations are addressed upon the applicant no. 1 who is the husband. It is further contended that the complaint itself is not maintainable and it is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned AGA submits that once an order came to be passed on 12.01.2024 under Section 12 of the Act against the applicant no. 1 awarding interim maintenance then it is for him to file an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act and as regards the other applicants are concerned whether they have any shared household as per Section 2(s) of the Act or there is no domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act and whether they have committed the offence and the allegations is against them for commission of the offences and they answer the description of respondents are under Section 2(r) of the Act are subject matter of the proceedings and it is for them to contest the proceedings taking legal and factual submission in that regard.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

7. Apparently, post lodging of the complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act by the opposite party no. 2 happens to be the wife and the applicant no. 1 who happens to be the husband and the other applicants who are in- laws an order came to be passed on 12.01.2024 against the applicant no. 1, husband for payment of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-.

8. The same is amenable to challenge the appeal under Section 29 of the Act or by proceedings under Section 25 of the Act by the applicant no. 1, husband. With respect to the applicant nos. 2 to 8 are concerned since only complaint has been challenged, thus, it is for them to contest the trial while taking legal and factual submissions. Even otherwise, prima facie the case is liable to be proceeded and it cannot be said to be frivolous to be out-rightly quashed in the present proceedings, particularly, when the allegation of the opposite party no. 2 being a wife is subjection of domestic violence which answers the description of the aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act and further the allegation is against the applicants for inflicting domestic violence, thus, they come within the definition of the respondents under Section 2(r). Moreover the question whether there has been a shared household under Section 2(s) or there has been domestic relationship under Section 2(f), they are subject matter of 3 NA528 No. 32274 of 2025 proceedings, particularly, when the words employed under Section 2(f) which defines domestic relationship means relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household and further so far as Section 2(s) is concerned, the same defines a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship meaning thereby it is not a hard and fast rule that only the complaint would be maintainable once the shared household or the domestic violence was done on a date of filing of the complaint as the words employed "at any point of time" marks significance. Since prima facie, the allegations cannot be said to be frivolous, thus, the same is subject matter of proceedings.

9. Accordingly, interference is declined and the application stands disposed of.

10. Leaving it open for the applicants to question the order dated 12.01.2024 awarding interim maintenance while preferring appeal or preferring proceedings under Section 2(s) of the Act and it is also left open for the applicants to contest the trial filing their objections raising all legal and factual aspects and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expedition. August 27, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Satya Narayan Gupta along with Sri Yogendra Pal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri S.K. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of the impugned summoning order dated 13.04.2022 as well as interim maintenance order dated 12.01.2024 passed by Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No. 2/Judicial Magistrate, Hapur in Case No. 213 of 2022 (Mamta Vs Arvind and others) Under Section 12 Domestic Violence Act, related to Police Station Babugarh, District Hapur, Pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No. 2/Judicial Magistrate, Hapur.

3. The case of the applicants is that a complaint stood preferred by the opposite party no. 2 on 10.01.2022 against the applicants who happened to be husband, father-in-law, unmarried Nanad, married sisters and her husbands, with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the applicant no. 1 and in the marriage, expenditure worth Rs. 12 lakhs were incurred and gifts and offerings of domestic articles i.e. gold and silver, three lakhs rupees cash and a motorcycle was offered and with the wedlock, a baby was born on 01.06.2015, however, on account of non-fulfillment of a four wheeler from the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence and on 27.04.2021, the mother-in-law of the opposite party no. 2 also expired and on 31.08.2021, the opposite party no. 2 was thrown out of her matrimonial house and she was deprived of her streedhan and other valuables. On 12.01.2024, an order came to be passed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act by the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Fast Track Court No. 2/Judicial Magistrate, Hapur awarding interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- against the applicant no. 1, husband.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that so far as the applicants are concerned, they happened to be applicant no. 1 and 2 NA528 No. 32274 of 2025 applicant no. 2 are husband and father-in-law, however, the other applicants are unmarried sister, married sisters and her husbands of the opposite party no. 2 and thus there happens to be no domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act and there is no shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act and further the opposite party no. 2 does not answer the description of an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act and applicants herein cannot be termed to be the respondents against whom allegations of committing of domestic violence can be made so as to make them respondent under Section 2(r) of the Act. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that whatever allegations are addressed upon the applicant no. 1 who is the husband. It is further contended that the complaint itself is not maintainable and it is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned AGA submits that once an order came to be passed on 12.01.2024 under Section 12 of the Act against the applicant no. 1 awarding interim maintenance then it is for him to file an appeal under Section 29 of the D.V. Act and as regards the other applicants are concerned whether they have any shared household as per Section 2(s) of the Act or there is no domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act and whether they have committed the offence and the allegations is against them for commission of the offences and they answer the description of respondents are under Section 2(r) of the Act are subject matter of the proceedings and it is for them to contest the proceedings taking legal and factual submission in that regard.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

7. Apparently, post lodging of the complaint under Section 12 of the D.V. Act by the opposite party no. 2 happens to be the wife and the applicant no. 1 who happens to be the husband and the other applicants who are in- laws an order came to be passed on 12.01.2024 against the applicant no. 1, husband for payment of interim maintenance to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-.

8. The same is amenable to challenge the appeal under Section 29 of the Act or by proceedings under Section 25 of the Act by the applicant no. 1, husband. With respect to the applicant nos. 2 to 8 are concerned since only complaint has been challenged, thus, it is for them to contest the trial while taking legal and factual submissions. Even otherwise, prima facie the case is liable to be proceeded and it cannot be said to be frivolous to be out-rightly quashed in the present proceedings, particularly, when the allegation of the opposite party no. 2 being a wife is subjection of domestic violence which answers the description of the aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act and further the allegation is against the applicants for inflicting domestic violence, thus, they come within the definition of the respondents under Section 2(r). Moreover the question whether there has been a shared household under Section 2(s) or there has been domestic relationship under Section 2(f), they are subject matter of 3 NA528 No. 32274 of 2025 proceedings, particularly, when the words employed under Section 2(f) which defines domestic relationship means relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household and further so far as Section 2(s) is concerned, the same defines a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship meaning thereby it is not a hard and fast rule that only the complaint would be maintainable once the shared household or the domestic violence was done on a date of filing of the complaint as the words employed "at any point of time" marks significance. Since prima facie, the allegations cannot be said to be frivolous, thus, the same is subject matter of proceedings.

9. Accordingly, interference is declined and the application stands disposed of.

10. Leaving it open for the applicants to question the order dated 12.01.2024 awarding interim maintenance while preferring appeal or preferring proceedings under Section 2(s) of the Act and it is also left open for the applicants to contest the trial filing their objections raising all legal and factual aspects and this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same shall be decided with most expedition. August 27, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad