Past Cohabitation Sufficient To Establish Domestic Relationship Under Domestic Violence Act: J&K High Court

The court made this observation while addressing a case where the petitioner challenged the maintainability of a domestic violence petition on the grounds that he no longer resided with the respondent.

The case arose from a complaint filed under Section 12 of the DV Act by a woman who alleged physical, economic, and emotional abuse by her husband. The petitioner argued that because he no longer lived with the respondent, the petition should not proceed.

In its decision, Justice Sanjay Dhar stated, “a 'domestic relationship' would mean a relationship between two persons who are either living or have lived in the past together in a shared household. So, merely because the petitioner and respondent No.1 are not presently living in a shared household, it cannot be stated that there is no domestic relationship between the two.”

The court delivered the judgment, explaining the interpretation of "domestic relationship" as defined in Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The court explained that the term includes individuals who have lived together at any point in a shared household, regardless of their current living situation.

Justice Dhar underscored that a domestic relationship encompasses past cohabitation, which is sufficient to meet the criteria set by the Act. Given that the petitioner and respondent had previously lived together as husband and wife, the court ruled that the allegations of domestic violence deserved a trial.

The petitioner had argued that he had not been residing with the respondent for a considerable period. Consequently, he contended that the trial magistrate should not have allowed the proceedings against him to continue, given his prolonged separation from the respondent.

Dismissing the petitioner's argument, the judge reiterated that the existence of a domestic relationship is not contingent upon the parties currently living together. Justice Dhar concluded that the allegations of domestic violence merited a trial, given the established domestic relationship between the parties.

Addressing procedural issues raised by the petitioner, the court acknowledged an error made by the appellate court, which noted the absence of a condonation of delay application. However, Justice Dhar clarified that this oversight did not affect the appellate court's substantive decision on the appeal's merits, rendering any interference unnecessary.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial magistrate's decision that the domestic violence petition against the petitioner was maintainable.

Case Title: Abdul Qayoom Mugloo Vs Irfana & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 220

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment