Court says proceedings under the PWDV Act cannot continue against relatives unless the complaint shows a domestic relationship and shared household at some point in time.
The Kerala High Court has quashed domestic violence proceedings against a woman’s brother-in-law and sister-in-law, holding that a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 must contain at least some factual foundation to show a “domestic relationship” between the parties.
Justice Jobin Sebastian, hearing a criminal miscellaneous case filed by the two relatives, said that while the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash proceedings in appropriate cases, such power must be used sparingly. However, where the complaint itself does not disclose the basic ingredients required under the law, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
The case arose from a petition filed under Section 12 of the PWDV Act before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode. In that petition, the husband of the aggrieved woman was named as the first respondent, his parents as respondents 2 and 3, and his brother and sister-in-law as respondents 4 and 5. The petitioners before the High Court were the latter two relatives.
The petitioners argued that they had never lived with the aggrieved woman in a shared household and were not in any domestic relationship with her. They contended that the complaint contained only general and omnibus allegations, without any specific pleading showing that they had ever resided together with her or formed part of a joint family household. On that basis, they said they could not be treated as “respondents” under the PWDV Act.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the allegations should be tested at trial and that the High Court should not interfere at the threshold. It was also submitted that proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act are predominantly civil in nature and should not ordinarily be quashed.
The High Court noted that the Supreme Court in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal has recognized that proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act can be quashed in appropriate cases under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court also referred to earlier decisions, including Hiral P. Harsora and Satish Chander Ahuja, to explain the meaning of “respondent” and “domestic relationship” under the Act.
The Court observed that under Section 2(f) of the PWDV Act, a domestic relationship requires that the parties live or have at some point lived together in a shared household, and that they must be related in one of the statutorily recognized ways. Mere relationship by marriage is not enough unless there is material showing shared residence at some point in time.
In the present case, the Court found that the Section 12 application did not contain any pleading that the brother-in-law and sister-in-law had ever lived with the aggrieved woman. There was no material to show that they were part of a joint family or shared household. The Court held that the complete absence of such foundational facts could not be cured by vague or omnibus allegations.
Concluding that the statutory requirement of a domestic relationship was missing, the Court held that allowing the proceedings to continue against the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings against the brother-in-law and sister-in-law were quashed, while the case was allowed to continue against the remaining respondents.
Bottom Line :
Proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in appropriate cases; but where brother-in-law and sister-in-law were arrayed as respondents without any pleading or material showing that they had ever lived with the aggrieved person in a shared household, absence of domestic relationship under Section 2(f) justified quashing of proceedings against them.
Statutory provision(s): Section 2(f), Section 2(q), Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Alvin Nithyanandh v. Sruthy Suresh Babu, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc id # 2987123
