Courts Must Verify That Named Individuals Shared Household With Aggrieved Party Before Issuing Notice U/S 12 Of DV Act: Allahabad HC
The case involved several individuals, including the married sisters of the husband and the husband of one of those sisters, who were accused of domestic violence.
The Allahabad High Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the individuals named in applications under the Domestic Violence Act are genuinely involved in domestic relationships and have lived in the shared household with the aggrieved party.
The case involved several individuals, including the married sisters of the husband and the husband of one of those sisters, who were accused of domestic violence.
A Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Deshwal pointed out that before a notice is issued under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, the court must first determine whether the person being implicated actually lived or has lived in the shared household with the aggrieved party.
Advocate Om Prakash Shukla appeared for the Applicant.
The Court added, “The respondent must be related to the aggrieved person in the manner as mentioned in Section 2(f) and he lived or has been living together with aggrieved person in a shared household and then commits domestic violence in the manner mentioned in Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act.”
The Court observed, “This Court came across number of cases where just to harass the family of husband or the person in domestic relationship, aggrieved party used to implicate the relatives of other side who are not even living or lived with the aggrieved person in shared household and they have been residing at separate places. Therefore, courts below while issuing notice u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act must look into this fact from the perusal of the application filed u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act along with other available record including the report of the Protection Officer, if available on record.”
The Court quashed the complaints and proceedings against five of the accused, as it was found that they had not resided in the shared household with the wife. As such, they could not be considered respondents under the Domestic Violence Act. The Court reasoned that under Section 2(q) of the Act, a respondent must have been living in the shared household with the aggrieved person.
However, the Court refused to quash the case against the mother-in-law of the aggrieved party, as she had lived in the shared household with the wife. It was alleged that the mother-in-law harassed the wife with demands for dowry and even threatened to evict her from the house. The Court noted that these actions, if proven, would constitute domestic violence under the Act.
The Court emphasized the need for the judicial process to ensure that accusations made under the Domestic Violence Act are not used as a tool for harassment, particularly against relatives who were not part of the shared household. It further stated that before proceeding with a notice under Section 12, the Court must verify whether the individual being implicated is living or has lived with the aggrieved person in the shared household.
The Court gave clear directions for the case to proceed swiftly against the mother-in-law (applicant no. 1) and the husband (applicant no. 7), with a stipulation that the matter be decided within 60 days.
Cause Title: Krishnawati Devi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., [2025:AHC:11572]
