Mere Domestic Relationship Between Parties Is Not Sufficient Unless There Are Specific Incidents Of Domestic Violence U/s. 3 Of DV Act- Allahabad HC
An Allahabad High Court Bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak has held that a mere domestic relationship between the parties is insufficient to inculpate the person who is in the domestic relation with the aggrieved person unless there is a specific incident of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act.
In that context, it was said that, "Considering the contents of the application under Section 12 D.V. Act, in light of the report submitted by the District Probation Officer and the statement of the complainant made before the District Probation Officer, it reveals that the names of all the family members of the husband has been taken by the complainant in casual manner on omnibus allegations without citing any particular incident attributing to any of the respondents (applicants herein). Mere domestic relationship between the parties is not sufficient to inculpate the person who is in the domestic relation with aggrieved person unless there is a specific incidents of domestic violence as defined under Section 3 of the D.V. Act."
Counsel Raj Kumar Kesari appeared for the applicant, while GA Deepesh Kumar Ojha and Counsel Prashant Drivedi appeared for the opposite party.
In this case, a challenge was placed against a summoning order issued by a Civil Judge under Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, within a Complaint Case filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.
Respondent no.2 had entered into marriage with applicant no.1 in 2019. Due to ongoing conflicts within the marriage, respondent no.2 filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. Subsequently, the Trial Court issued a summons to the applicants and directed the Probation/Protection Officer to submit a report. In compliance with this order, the Probation/Protection Officer submitted an inquiry report, following the guidelines outlined in Form-I as per the Domestic Violence Rules of 2006.
In the report, the District Probation Officer detailed statements made by the complainant, the husband, the mother-in-law, and the father-in-law. While the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act were ongoing, the court issued an ex-parte order under Section 23 of the D.V. Act, granting interim maintenance of Rs. 3000 per month to respondent no.2, the wife.
The Court observed that the names of all the family members of the husband had been taken by the complainant in a casual manner on omnibus allegations without citing any particular incident attributing to any of the accused.
Placing reliance on a catena of Judgments of the Supreme Court, including Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P, the Court observed that "omnibus allegation by referring the name of the relatives of the husband in a casual manner are not sufficient to implicate them in criminal cases."
In light of the same, the Court quashed the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Cause Title: Virendra Kumar Kushwaha And Others v. State of U.P. and Another