Clarifying Domestic Relationships under the D.V. Act: Legal Boundaries and Precedents.


14 February 2024 Husband or relative subjecting the women to cruelty >> Criminal Law   |   Domestic Violence >> Family Law  

The concept of "domestic relationship" within the context of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) has been a subject of much legal discussion. A recent judgment of Kinjal Jayesh Mehta vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi & Another by the Sessions Court and subsequent review by the High Court sheds light on this concept and the nuances involved in determining whether a person, such as a married sister-in-law, can be considered a respondent under the D.V. Act, particularly in cases where no actual cohabitation occurs.

Background:

In this case, the petitioner challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court, which had allowed the appeal of the respondent (aggrieved person) against a decision by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The lower court had dismissed the application of the respondent under the D.V. Act against the petitioner, who was the married sister-in-law. The respondent had filed an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, seeking relief for alleged acts of domestic violence by her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and the petitioner.

 

 

The key issue arose over whether the petitioner, despite being a relative of the aggrieved person, could be considered to be in a "domestic relationship" under the D.V. Act. The lower court ruled that since the petitioner and the respondent had never lived together in the shared household, there was no domestic relationship, and thus, the application against the petitioner was dismissed. However, the Sessions Court set aside this decision, holding that the issue of whether a domestic relationship existed could only be decided after the trial, when evidence could be presented.

Legal Analysis:

The pivotal question in this case was whether a married sister-in-law, residing in her own matrimonial home, could be considered in a "domestic relationship" with the respondent under the D.V. Act. This would determine whether she could be named as a respondent in the domestic violence application.

The D.V. Act defines "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) as a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household, and who are related by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as family members living together as a joint family. It is essential for the person seeking relief under the Act to show that they have been in a domestic relationship with the respondent, and this relationship must be substantiated by evidence of shared living or cohabitation.

In this case, the petitioner, being a married woman residing separately in her matrimonial home, had never lived in the same household as the respondent. The respondent's allegation that the petitioner occasionally spent time at the shared household could not, by itself, establish a domestic relationship under the D.V. Act.

Court's Ruling:

The Sessions Court had relied on previous judgments, such as Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (2022) and Ali Hamid Daruwala v. Mrs. Nahid Rishad Cooper & Ors., where the courts had held that a person need not have resided with the aggrieved person at the time of the alleged domestic violence to be considered in a domestic relationship. These decisions primarily focused on the right to reside in the shared household, especially in cases involving a right to live in the marital home.

However, the High Court disagreed with the Sessions Court's interpretation in this case. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s sporadic visits to the shared household, without any permanency, did not constitute a "domestic relationship" as envisaged under the D.V. Act. It further noted that the allegations against the petitioner were general and lacked specific acts of domestic violence, which is a requirement for seeking relief under the D.V. Act. Moreover, the reliefs sought in the application were primarily aimed at the respondent’s husband, not the petitioner.

Conclusion:

The High Court quashed the Sessions Court's decision, restoring the Magistrate's ruling, which had dismissed the application against the petitioner. The court concluded that there was no subsisting domestic relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, as required under the D.V. Act, and that the mere visits of the petitioner to the shared household did not suffice to establish such a relationship. 

Furthermore, the lack of specific allegations of domestic violence against the petitioner meant that the application could not stand in its current form. This case highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of the D.V. Act, particularly the definition of "domestic relationship." It clarifies that a person cannot be considered a respondent unless there is evidence of cohabitation or a sustained domestic relationship. The decision reiterates that domestic violence cases must be based on clear and specific allegations against the respondent, rather than vague or generalized claims.

  

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005