The Court rejected arguments by the in-laws of woman that they could not be charged in a DV case since there was no domestic relationship between them and their daughter-in-law after she left the marital home in 2016.
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently held that a ‘domestic relationship’ under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) also includes relationships where individuals previously lived together in a shared household.
Justice Sanjay Dhar made this observation while rejecting a plea to quash domestic violence charges against a woman’s parents-in-law.
The in-laws contended that the DV case was not maintainable as they no longer shared a domestic relationship with their daughter-in-law after she left the matrimonial home in 2016.
The Court, however, dismissed this argument, stating that it was sufficient that the in-laws had previously shared a domestic relationship with their estranged daughter-in-law.
“The definition (of ‘domestic violence’ under the DV Act) makes it clear that ‘domestic relationship’ would include even a relationship between two persons who may have lived . Therefore, even if the respondent has left the shared household in the year 2016, but the fact of the matter remains that prior to that, she has admittedly lived in a shared household with the petitioners. Thus, there was a domestic relationship between the parties,” the Court said.
The case involved a complaint filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws, accusing them of taunting and physically assaulting her for not bringing enough dowry following her marriage in 2015.
This was the woman’s second complaint of this nature, with the first one having been withdrawn in 2021.
After the new complaint was filed, the charges against the woman’s sister-in-law were dropped by a Jammu court. However, similar relief was not granted to her parents-in-law (petitioners), leading them to approach the High Court.
The petitioners contended that the complainant (daughter-in-law) could not file a second complaint on the same issue after withdrawing her previous complaint in 2021. However, the Court was not persuaded by this argument.
“Procedure pertaining to res judicata (a principle to restrain courts from re-examining issues that are already settled), or even principles in the nature of res judicata, can not be made applicable to the proceedings under the DV Act, particularly in a case where the aggrieved person has explained the circumstances under which she has filed the second petition after withdrawal of the earlier petition,” it said.
The petitioners further claimed that they no longer shared a domestic relationship with the complainant, but this argument was also rejected by the Court on November 8.
As a result, the Court dismissed the plea filed by the parents-in-law (petitioners).
