In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has underscored that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) cannot be sustained against individuals who were never in a domestic relationship with the complainant. The Court granted ad-interim relief to petitioners, including a daughter-in-law who resided separately from the complainant, highlighting the necessity of establishing a domestic relationship as a precondition for invoking the DV Act.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from a complaint filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) by the complainant (respondent herein) against seven petitioners, including her daughter-in-law (petitioner No. 1) and other relatives (petitioner Nos. 2 to 7). The complainant alleged domestic violence, seeking relief under the DV Act.
Key Facts
- Marriage and Residence: Petitioner No. 1 (daughter-in-law) married the complainant’s son on 03.07.2022. From September 2022 to 2023, she resided in Bangalore, away from the complainant’s home.
- Complainant’s Allegations: The complainant filed a complaint under the DV Act, alleging domestic violence by all petitioners, including petitioner No. 1.
- Petitioners’ Contention: Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 argued they were never in a domestic relationship with the complainant. Petitioner No. 1 contended that her limited cohabitation with the complainant did not establish a domestic relationship under the DV Act.
Procedural History
- Date of Complaint: The complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate under the DV Act.
- Filing of Writ Petition: The petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 256 of 2026 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the proceedings.
- Amendment of Prayer Clause: At the outset, the petitioners sought leave to amend the prayer clause, which was granted.
- Hearing Date: The matter was heard on 10.07.2026, with notice issued to the respondents returnable on 20.08.2026.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the proceedings under the DV Act against petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 on the ground that they were never in a domestic relationship with the complainant.
- Stay of proceedings against petitioner No. 1, arguing that her residence in Bangalore precluded the existence of a domestic relationship.
- Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) of the writ petition.
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be sustained against individuals who:
- Were never in a domestic relationship with the complainant (petitioner Nos. 2 to 7), or
- Resided separately from the complainant during the alleged period of domestic violence (petitioner No. 1).
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
- No Domestic Relationship: Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners argued that petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 were never in a domestic relationship with the complainant, rendering the proceedings under the DV Act untenable against them.
- Limited Cohabitation: For petitioner No. 1, it was contended that her residence in Bangalore from September 2022 to 2023 negated the existence of a domestic relationship with the complainant, as required under Section 2(f) of the DV Act.
- Prima Facie Case: The petitioners relied on the complaint itself, which, according to them, did not disclose any domestic relationship, thereby justifying the stay of proceedings.
For the Respondent/State
- The State, represented by the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP), did not present counter-arguments during the hearing, as the matter was adjourned for notice to be issued to the respondents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a prima facie examination of the complaint and the petitioners’ contentions. It observed:
"Prima facie, a perusal of the complaint supports the aforesaid contention of the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners."
The Court emphasized the statutory requirement under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which defines a "domestic relationship" as:
"a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family."
The Court noted that:
- Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 were not related to the complainant in a manner that would establish a domestic relationship under the DV Act.
- Petitioner No. 1, though married to the complainant’s son, resided in Bangalore during the alleged period of domestic violence, which negated the existence of a shared household or domestic relationship during that time.
The Court held that the existence of a domestic relationship is a jurisdictional prerequisite for invoking the DV Act. Without it, the proceedings cannot be sustained. The Court’s analysis was rooted in the statutory interpretation of Section 2(f), ensuring that the scope of the DV Act is not misapplied to individuals who do not meet the statutory definition of a domestic relationship.
The Verdict
The Court granted ad-interim relief to the petitioners in terms of prayer clause (C) of the writ petition. Specifically:
- Notice was issued to the respondents, returnable on 20.08.2026.
- Stay of Proceedings: The Court stayed the proceedings under the DV Act against all petitioners until the next date of hearing.
- The relief was granted on the ground that the complaint prima facie did not establish a domestic relationship between the complainant and the petitioners, rendering the proceedings untenable.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Domestic Relationship Is a Jurisdictional Prerequisite
- Strict Interpretation: This judgment reinforces that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cannot be invoked against individuals who do not share a domestic relationship with the complainant. Courts must strictly interpret Section 2(f) to ensure proceedings are limited to those who fall within its ambit.
- Shared Household Requirement: Mere marital or familial ties are insufficient. The complainant must establish that the accused lived or had lived together in a shared household at the time of the alleged violence.
Implications for Daughter-in-Law Cases
- Residence Matters: The judgment clarifies that a daughter-in-law residing separately from the complainant (e.g., in another city) during the alleged period of violence cannot be subjected to DV Act proceedings. Practitioners should emphasize the lack of cohabitation as a defense.
- Evidence of Separate Residence: Accused individuals should gather evidence (e.g., rental agreements, utility bills, employment records) to prove they were not residing with the complainant during the relevant period.
Procedural Safeguards
- Prima Facie Scrutiny: Courts are likely to scrutinize complaints under the DV Act at the prima facie stage to determine the existence of a domestic relationship. Frivolous or misdirected complaints may be stayed or quashed at an early stage.
- Notice to Complainant: This judgment sets a precedent for granting ad-interim relief where the complaint fails to disclose a domestic relationship, ensuring accused individuals are not unnecessarily dragged into prolonged litigation.
Practitioners should note that this order does not conclusively quash the proceedings but stays them pending further hearing. The final outcome will depend on the complainant’s ability to establish a domestic relationship during the subsequent proceedings.
