Can't proceed against in-laws if not living with daughter-in-law, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, May 13

In a significant judgment liable to change the way cases under the domestic violence (DV) Act are adjudicated, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a complaint under the Act against the in-laws is an abuse of the process of law if they do not have a “domestic relationship” with the complainant-daughter-in-law and have not lived together in a shared household with her.

The ruling by Justice Suvir Sehgal came on a petition filed by the aged in-laws for quashing a complaint under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Bench, during the course of the hearing, was told that the in-laws had all through lived at their self-acquired house separately from their son — a government servant.

Taking up the matter, Justice Sehgal asserted that a perusal of the complaint filed by the respondent-daughter-in-law showed that the allegations of harassment and maltreatment for brining insufficient dowry had been levelled against the in-laws and the husband. Specific instances of harassment and violence at the husbands’ hands had been mentioned.

Justice Sehgal asserted that the allegations might attract offences under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. But it was necessary for the parties to be in a “domestic relationship” as defined under the provisions of the Act to invoke the jurisdiction under it.

The complaint’s tone and toner showed that the primary allegation by the respondent was against the husband. The averment that the respondent ever lived together with the petitioner-in-laws at any point of time was missing. The petitioners had lived separately from their son throughout and were never in a domestic relationship with the respondent in the entire 17 years of her marriage, except for occasional visits to her house during festive times.

Justice Sehgal was also of the opinion that an occasional visit by the petitioner-in-laws to the respondent’s matrimonial house would not bring it within the four corners of the definition of domestic relationship or shared household.

Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, Justice Sehgal added: “In view of the clear enunciation of law by the apex court, this court has no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners, both of whom are aged more than 75, do not have any domestic relationship, nor have they lived together in a shared household with the respondent and the institution of the complaint against them under the provisions of the DV Act is an abuse of the process of law and the same deserves to be set aside”.

Allowing the petition by the in-laws, Justice Sehgal quashed the complaint under the Act as far as the petitioners were concerned. All proceedings against them arising from the complaint were also ordered to be quashed.

Domestic ties are must

In order to invoke the jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, it is necessary that the parties should be in a ‘domestic relationship’ as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act. — Justice Suvir Sehgal, High Court