In its adjudication, the Bombay High Court nullified a domestic violence claim levied against the married sister-in-law of the plaintiff. The court’s rationale rested on the determination that the sister-in-law’s sporadic visits to the plaintiff’s domicile, lacking ascertainable indicators of permanent residency, failed to satisfy the requisites for establishing her as a constituent of the shared household.
Presiding over the proceedings, Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh granted credence to a writ petition advanced by the sister-in-law. This petition contested the appellate jurisdiction exercised by the Sessions Court, which had subsequently overturned the prior dismissal rendered by the Metropolitan Magistrate concerning the domestic violence allegations brought against her.
“there was no subsisting domestic relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent No 1 and the Petitioner could not have been arrayed as Respondent in the D.V. application. The mere visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household. Even otherwise considering the pleadings in the applications read with the reliefs, there is no case of domestic violence made out qua the Petitioner”, the court held.
The legal dispute at hand revolves around the interpretation and application of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), particularly regarding the definition and establishment of a domestic relationship. Let’s delve deeper into the intricacies of this case:
The complainant, seeking recourse under the DV Act, filed proceedings against her husband, mother-in-law, unmarried brother-in-law, and the petitioner, who is identified as the married sister-in-law. The complaint alleged acts of domestic violence and sought relief under various provisions of the Act.
Initially, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Girgaon, Mumbai, dismissed the application against the petitioner. The court reasoned that there was no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the complainant due to their non-cohabitation within a shared household. Consequently, the court proceeded to issue notices solely to the other accused parties.
However, the decision of the lower court was appealed, and the Sessions Court overturned it. The Sessions Court held that the determination of a domestic relationship between the petitioner and the complainant required a thorough trial and assessment of the evidence presented.
In response to the Sessions Court’s ruling, the petitioner approached the High Court, challenging the decision. The crux of the petitioner’s argument rested on the assertion that her residence in a separate matrimonial domicile, distinct from the shared household of the complainant, precluded the establishment of any domestic relationship, as defined under Section 2(f) of the DV Act.
On the other hand, the complainant contended that the petitioner’s frequent visits to the shared household constituted grounds for inferring a domestic relationship, despite her residing in a separate abode.
In its deliberation, the High Court emphasized the statutory requirement within the DV Act for cohabitation within a shared household to substantiate a domestic relationship. It clarified that such a relationship encompasses individuals who either presently cohabit or have previously cohabited within a shared domicile.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the chronology of events, noting that the petitioner’s marital bond predates the union between the complainant and the petitioner’s brother. Additionally, the distinct address provided by the petitioner in the domestic violence application, which differed from the shared household’s address, underscored her separate residency in her matrimonial abode.
In essence, the High Court’s decision underscored the importance of statutory interpretation and the necessity for evidence-based assessments in determining the existence of a domestic relationship under the DV Act. It provided clarity on the requirement of cohabitation within a shared household and emphasized the significance of factual circumstances in such legal proceedings.
“the Petitioner is the married sister-in-law residing in her own matrimonial house and it cannot be said that the right of the aggrieved person to reside in the shared household would constitute a subsisting domestic relationship with the Petitioner. It would have been a different matter if the Petitioner was unmarried and was residing in the shared household”, observed the court.
In her application, the complainant asserted that the respondent, her married sister-in-law, habitually occupied the shared household, particularly underscoring recurring visits spanning from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Despite the regularity of these visits, the court adjudicated that they lacked the requisite degree of permanence to establish a domestic relationship, particularly in consideration of the respondent’s distinct abode.
Upon careful deliberation, the court discerned the absence of a domestic relationship within the statutory framework outlined by pertinent legislation due to the respondent’s separate residency. Furthermore, the court found the allegations leveled against the respondent within the complaint to be general and unsupported, devoid of specific instances of imputable domestic violence.
In elucidating the precedential value of cited case law, the court expounded that antecedent judgments did not furnish a normative template directly applicable to the instant case. It reiterated the imperative of adjudicating each matter on its individual merits, emphasizing the necessity of contextual specificity.
Consequently, the High Court nullified the pronouncement of the Sessions Court and reinstated the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate, thereby dismissing the petitioner’s application under the purview of the Domestic Violence Act.
