Priti Tiwari v. Vivek Mishra and others) under section

2. Heard Sri Mayank Bhushan Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned AGA for the State.

3. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 24/IX/2022 (Priti Tiwari Versus Vivek Mishra and others) under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, Police Station Atarra, District Banda, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D)/F.T.C.-1, Banda.

4. The case of the applicants is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on

11.01.2022 with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the application no. 1, husband on 29.04.2017 and in the said complaint not only the applicant Jeth, Jethani, Nanad were arraigned as accused. Allegation is that in the marriage, huge expenditure were incurred but the applicant were not happy with the gift so offered, thus, the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence on

25.06.2017 the opposite party no. 2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house thereafter, notices came to be issued on 11.12.2022.

5. Questioning the maintainability of the proceedings the complaint as well as the issuance of the notice, the present application has been preferred. 2 NA528 No. 34525 of 2025

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that though the cause of action relatable to subjection to domestic violence is stated to be dated

25.06.2017 but the complaint stood preferred on 11.02.2022 approximately after four and a half year. Further submission is that even otherwise the opposite party no. 2 had instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby the same ground regarding the incident dated 25.06.2017 was taken and the same was decreed and the divorce decree was passed. It is also contended that further a first information report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant in Case Crime No. 92 of 2020 under Section 498A, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act with relation to the incident dated 25.06.2017. Submission is that the opposite party no. 2 is invoking multiple proceedings under variety of enactments just in order to implicate and to harass the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that once there happens to be a decree of divorce then the proceedings of domestic violence cannot be continued. It is also contended on behalf of the applicants that the applicants no. 2 to 5 have separate living, they do not have shared household or domestic relationship with the opposite party no. 2.

7. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that once an order came to be passed on 21.07.2022 for proceedings ex parte and the same came to be recorded on 24.07.2025 at the instance of the applicants that it is for them to contest the said proceedings.

8. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

9. Apparently, the opposite party no. 2 claims herself to be the wife of the applicant no. 1 and the rest of the applicants are in-laws. The opposite party no. 2 has come up with a stand in the complaint that she had been subjected to domestic violence and she was thrown out from matrimonial house on 25.06.2017. As a matter of fact, FIR under Section 498A, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act being Case Crime No. 92 of 2020 came to be lodged against the applicants. Now a question arises whether the opposite party no. 2 post divorce can be said to be an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act and whether any allegation can be levelled upon the applicant under Section 2(r) so as to 3 NA528 No. 34525 of 2025 term into the respondents. Further question would be regarding the share household under Section 2(s) and domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act. Importantly, the divorce petition came to be preferred in the year 2018 and the decree of divorce came to be passed on 07.05.2022. Prima facie, the allegations are relatable to the year 2017 prior to the institution of the divorce petition. The words employed in Section 2(f) with relation to relationship assigning a meaning a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in shared household whether they are related by consequently marriage of true relationship and Section 2(s) being share household means an household when the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent marks significance particularly when it is not a hard and fast rule that on the date of the filing of the complaint there should be shared household or domestic relationship and what would be pertinent to be at any point of time there was any shared household or domestic relationship. Since the allegations in the complaint are relatable to the year 2017 and the proceedings were lodged post the said incident, thus, prima facie the proceedings cannot be said to be non entertainable as they are subject matter of adjudication even otherwise there are allegations of subjection to domestic violence by the opposite party no. 2 upon the applicants, thus, the applicants prima facie answer the definition of Section 2(r) and the applicant under Section 2(a) insofar as it pertains to aggrieved person. Moreover, this Court at this stage when the complaint has been challenged is not required to delve into the merits of the allegations as they are to be adjudged in the trial. Further, it has come on record that on 21.07.2022, the proceedings were directed to be held ex parte and on an application preferred by the applicants herein on 24.07.2025, the said order was recalled. Thus, it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings while taking all legal and factual grounds. As regards, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants no. 2 to 5 have separate living and they do not have shared household under Section 2(s) and domestic relationship under Section 2(r) is concerned, the same in absence of convincible document cannot be gone into while recording a conclusive finding, thus, it is for applicants to contest the trial and substantiate the claim that there is no shared household or domestic relationship and tney have separate 4 NA528 No. 34525 of 2025 living.The extent of judicial intervention in the complaints under Section 12 of the DV Act in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal) decided on 19.05.2025, Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of intervention in the matters where complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 was challenged, wherein para 35 and 39 was observed as under.- "...35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic violence. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1). Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing with a prayer for quashing the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated.

39. To conclude, the view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate. However, considering the object of the DV Act, 2005, the High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1). Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice."

10. Since no orders have been passed and the applicants are already contesting the trial, thus, the application disposed of leaving it open for 5 NA528 No. 34525 of 2025 the applicants to take all legal and factual grounds which are permissible and advisable under law before the court below while contesting the trial and, in case, any orders are passed then they are subject to challenge under the provisions/remedies available under the Act. September 25, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) RAJESH KUMAR RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. Heard Sri Mayank Bhushan Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned AGA for the State.

3. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 24/IX/2022 (Priti Tiwari Versus Vivek Mishra and others) under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, Police Station Atarra, District Banda, pending in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D)/F.T.C.-1, Banda.

4. The case of the applicants is that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on

11.01.2022 with an allegation that the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 stood solemnized with the application no. 1, husband on 29.04.2017 and in the said complaint not only the applicant Jeth, Jethani, Nanad were arraigned as accused. Allegation is that in the marriage, huge expenditure were incurred but the applicant were not happy with the gift so offered, thus, the opposite party no. 2 was subjected to domestic violence on

25.06.2017 the opposite party no. 2 was thrown out from her matrimonial house thereafter, notices came to be issued on 11.12.2022.

5. Questioning the maintainability of the proceedings the complaint as well as the issuance of the notice, the present application has been preferred. 2 NA528 No. 34525 of 2025

6. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that though the cause of action relatable to subjection to domestic violence is stated to be dated

25.06.2017 but the complaint stood preferred on 11.02.2022 approximately after four and a half year. Further submission is that even otherwise the opposite party no. 2 had instituted proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act whereby the same ground regarding the incident dated 25.06.2017 was taken and the same was decreed and the divorce decree was passed. It is also contended that further a first information report was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant in Case Crime No. 92 of 2020 under Section 498A, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act with relation to the incident dated 25.06.2017. Submission is that the opposite party no. 2 is invoking multiple proceedings under variety of enactments just in order to implicate and to harass the applicants. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that once there happens to be a decree of divorce then the proceedings of domestic violence cannot be continued. It is also contended on behalf of the applicants that the applicants no. 2 to 5 have separate living, they do not have shared household or domestic relationship with the opposite party no. 2.

7. Learned State Law Officer, on the other hand, submits that once an order came to be passed on 21.07.2022 for proceedings ex parte and the same came to be recorded on 24.07.2025 at the instance of the applicants that it is for them to contest the said proceedings.

8. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

9. Apparently, the opposite party no. 2 claims herself to be the wife of the applicant no. 1 and the rest of the applicants are in-laws. The opposite party no. 2 has come up with a stand in the complaint that she had been subjected to domestic violence and she was thrown out from matrimonial house on 25.06.2017. As a matter of fact, FIR under Section 498A, 504 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the DP Act being Case Crime No. 92 of 2020 came to be lodged against the applicants. Now a question arises whether the opposite party no. 2 post divorce can be said to be an aggrieved person under Section 2(a) of the Act and whether any allegation can be levelled upon the applicant under Section 2(r) so as to 3 NA528 No. 34525 of 2025 term into the respondents. Further question would be regarding the share household under Section 2(s) and domestic relationship under Section 2(f) of the Act. Importantly, the divorce petition came to be preferred in the year 2018 and the decree of divorce came to be passed on 07.05.2022. Prima facie, the allegations are relatable to the year 2017 prior to the institution of the divorce petition. The words employed in Section 2(f) with relation to relationship assigning a meaning a relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in shared household whether they are related by consequently marriage of true relationship and Section 2(s) being share household means an household when the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent marks significance particularly when it is not a hard and fast rule that on the date of the filing of the complaint there should be shared household or domestic relationship and what would be pertinent to be at any point of time there was any shared household or domestic relationship. Since the allegations in the complaint are relatable to the year 2017 and the proceedings were lodged post the said incident, thus, prima facie the proceedings cannot be said to be non entertainable as they are subject matter of adjudication even otherwise there are allegations of subjection to domestic violence by the opposite party no. 2 upon the applicants, thus, the applicants prima facie answer the definition of Section 2(r) and the applicant under Section 2(a) insofar as it pertains to aggrieved person. Moreover, this Court at this stage when the complaint has been challenged is not required to delve into the merits of the allegations as they are to be adjudged in the trial. Further, it has come on record that on 21.07.2022, the proceedings were directed to be held ex parte and on an application preferred by the applicants herein on 24.07.2025, the said order was recalled. Thus, it is for the applicants to contest the proceedings while taking all legal and factual grounds. As regards, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants no. 2 to 5 have separate living and they do not have shared household under Section 2(s) and domestic relationship under Section 2(r) is concerned, the same in absence of convincible document cannot be gone into while recording a conclusive finding, thus, it is for applicants to contest the trial and substantiate the claim that there is no shared household or domestic relationship and tney have separate 4 NA528 No. 34525 of 2025 living.The extent of judicial intervention in the complaints under Section 12 of the DV Act in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2688 of 2025 (Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs. Vidhi Rawal) decided on 19.05.2025, Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to consider the extent of intervention in the matters where complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act, 2005 was challenged, wherein para 35 and 39 was observed as under.- "...35. When it comes to exercise of power under Section 482 of the CrPC in relation to application under Section 12(1), the High Court has to keep in mind the fact that the DV Act, 2005 is a welfare legislation specially enacted to give justice to those women who suffer from domestic violence and for preventing acts of domestic violence. Therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC for quashing proceedings under Section 12(1), the High Court should be very slow and circumspect. Interference can be made only when the case is clearly of gross illegality or gross abuse of the process of law. Generally, the High Court must adopt a hands-off approach while dealing with proceedings under Section 482 for quashing an application under Section 12(1). Unless the High Courts show restraint in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC while dealing with a prayer for quashing the proceedings under the DV Act, 2005, the very object of enacting the DV Act, 2005, will be defeated.

39. To conclude, the view taken in the impugned order of the High Court that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC for challenging the proceedings emanating from Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005 is not maintainable, is not the correct view. We hold that High Courts can exercise power under Section 482 of CrPC (Section 528 of the BNSS) for quashing the proceedings emanating from the application under Section 12(1) of the DV Act, 2005, pending before the Court of the learned Magistrate. However, considering the object of the DV Act, 2005, the High Courts should exercise caution and circumspection when dealing with an application under Section 12(1). Normally, interference under Section 482 is warranted only in the case of gross illegality or injustice."

10. Since no orders have been passed and the applicants are already contesting the trial, thus, the application disposed of leaving it open for 5 NA528 No. 34525 of 2025 the applicants to take all legal and factual grounds which are permissible and advisable under law before the court below while contesting the trial and, in case, any orders are passed then they are subject to challenge under the provisions/remedies available under the Act. September 25, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) RAJESH KUMAR RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad