Domestic Violence Act Can Be Invoked For Past Domestic Relationships As Well: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Justice Sanjay Dhar clarified that the definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the DV Act is not confined to ongoing cohabitation but extends to relationships where shared residence existed previously.

Justice Dhar while deciding the matter observed, “The definition makes it clear that 'domestic relationship' would include even a relationship between two persons who may have lived together in a shared household at any point of time. Therefore, even if the respondent has left the shared household in the year 2016, but the fact of the matter remains that prior to that, she has admittedly lived in a shared household with the petitioners.”

The case arose when the respondent, alleging domestic violence, filed a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act against her husband and in-laws, including the petitioners. The allegations included dowry harassment, verbal abuse, and coercion. The petitioners sought to have the proceedings dropped, arguing that the respondent had withdrawn an earlier petition and had not resided with them since 2016.

Addressing the petitioners' contention regarding the withdrawal of the earlier petition, the Court rejected the argument of res judicata or similar principles. Justice Dhar noted that the respondent had provided a clear explanation that the earlier petition was withdrawn based on assurances from the petitioners that she would be taken back into the matrimonial home.

The court further noted that when these assurances were not honoured, the respondent was left with no choice but to approach the Court again. The Court observed that the DV Act is a special legislation and its proceedings cannot be strictly bound by principles applicable to civil suits.

The petitioners also argued that the absence of a current domestic relationship disqualified the respondent's claims under the DV Act. Rejecting this argument, the Court emphasized that Section 2(f) of the DV Act includes prior shared residence within the scope of a “domestic relationship.”

Justice Dhar reiterated that the existence of a domestic relationship does not depend upon present cohabitation; it is sufficient if the parties had lived together in a shared household at any point in time.

Both the trial court and the appellate court had found the allegations specific and serious enough to warrant proceedings under the DV Act. Upholding these findings, Justice Dhar dismissed the petition, affirming that the respondent had made a prima facie case of domestic violence and that the proceedings were maintainable.

Case Title: Sardul Singh son of Joga Singh VS Davinder Kour wife of Gurinder Singh

Citation 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 341

Click Here to Read/Download Judgement