Married Sister-In-Law Who Frequently Visits House Not In Domestic Relationship With Complainant: Bombay High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case

The Bombay High Court quashed a domestic violence case against a woman's married sister-in-law observing that the sister-in-law visiting frequently to the household of the complainant without any permanency is not sufficient to constitute residence in shared household.

Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh allowed a writ petition filed by the sister-in-law challenging the order of the Sessions Court which overturned the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate to dismiss the domestic violence complaint against her.

“there was no subsisting domestic relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent No 1 and the Petitioner could not have been arrayed as Respondent in the D.V. application. The mere visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household. Even otherwise considering the pleadings in the applications read with the reliefs, there is no case of domestic violence made out qua the Petitioner”, the court held.

The complainant filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking relief under various sections of the Act against her husband, mother-in-law, unmarried brother-in-law, and the petitioner, who is the married sister-in-law.

However, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Girgaon, Mumbai, dismissed the application against the petitioner, holding that there was no domestic relationship between the parties as they had never lived together in the shared household. The court issued notice only to the other accused.

The complainant's appeal against this decision was allowed by the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court held that the question of whether a domestic relationship existed between the petitioner and the complainant should be decided during trial based on evidence presented.

Thus, the petitioner approached the high court challenging the Sessions Court order.

The petitioner argued that as she resided in her own matrimonial house, distinct from the shared household of the complainant, there was no domestic relationship between them as per Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which defines "domestic relationship."

The complainant contended that the petitioner's frequent visits to the shared household constituted a domestic relationship, even if she resided separately.

The court emphasized that the definition of "domestic relationship" under the DV Act necessitates a shared household and a certain degree of cohabitation. Domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, the court noted.

The court noted that the petitioner's marriage was solemnised before the marriage of the complainant to petitioner's brother, and the petitioner and the complainant never resided together in the shared household. The address of the petitioner given in the domestic violence application which is different from the address of the shared household also shows separate residence of the petitioner at her matrimonial house, the court said.

“the Petitioner is the married sister-in-law residing in her own matrimonial house and it cannot be said that the right of the aggrieved person to reside in the shared household would constitute a subsisting domestic relationship with the Petitioner. It would have been a different matter if the Petitioner was unmarried and was residing in the shared household”, observed the court.

The complainant in her application claimed that her married sister-in-law spent her entire day in the shared household, emphasizing her daily visits from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm. “The pleadings as regards the visits of the Petitioner do not indicate an element of permanency sufficient enough to constitute domestic relationship even if it is accepted that the Petitioner was spending her entire day in the shared household”, the court opined.

Since the Petitioner resided separately, the court ruled that there was no domestic relationship as defined by the Act. Further, the court found the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint to be general and unsubstantiated, lacking specific incidents of domestic violence attributable to her.

While dealing with case laws cited by the complainant, the court clarified that previous judgments did not set a precedent applicable to the present case. Each case must be considered on its individual merits, and the court cannot overlook the specific circumstances, the court said.

Consequently, the High Court quashed the Sessions Court's order and restored the Metropolitan Magistrate's decision dismissing the DV application against the petitioner.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment