Nowadays It Is 'Fashion To Array Husband's Relatives In Domestic Violence Cases Irrespective Of Their Involvement: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has recently taken judicial notice of the 'fashion' of arraying all relatives of a husband as respondents in domestic violence cases, irrespective of their involvement in the same.

In allowing a revision petition by the petitioners, who were distant relatives of the complainant's husband, a single-judge bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain dismissed the complaint filed against them under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, as well as set aside the issuance of process against them by the Magistrate.

It further observed that the issuance of process by the judicial magistrate must not be a 'mechanical process'; and required due application of mind with the availability of sufficient evidence. These observations were made upon observing the fact that the husband's distant relatives had not been residing with him or his wife when the domestic violence complaint was made. 

The Court noted that keeping the above in mind, the magistrate should have exercised due caution before issuing process, since the complainant had not clarified the role or particular acts of the relatives in her complaint and that they had been arrayed in the proceedings solely based on their status as the relatives of the husband.

“…Once the fact is established that neither the applicant was under an obligation to receive any maintenance from the present petitioners [revision petitioners] nor applicant was residing in a joint family with the petitioners then the role of the petitioners has to be specified by specific averments, but nothing is available on record, which means just to harass present petitioners, this petition under Section 12 of DV Act was filed, therefore, the learned trial court without considering the grounds had dismissed the application and so the appellate court”, the bench sitting at Jaipur explained.

Terming the current proceedings against the revision petitioners as 'an abuse of process of law', the court also pointed out that though Rs 10 lakhs were sought from the revision petitioners as compensation, the complainant had failed to enumerate the actions for which they were to be held liable for.

The counsel for the revision petitioners, Advocate Abhishek Bharadwaj, vehemently relied upon a slew of decisions such as Pramod Kumar Choudhary v. Anitha Choudhary & Ors (2015) and Vijay Verma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors(2010) to buttress his argument that the applicant/ respondent had failed to establish the 'domestic relationship' contemplated under DV Act to make the relatives liable.

He also argued that the petitioners were arrayed as respondents in the original proceedings merely based on apprehension, which could not be done while instituting proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act.

On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant, advocate Vishwas Sharma submitted that the offence of domestic violence committed by the revision petitioners would be proved through evidence during trial.

The revision petitioners had earlier filed a criminal appeal before the Karauli Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 aggrieved by the order in the criminal case instituted by the complainant. Due to its dismissal, the relatives preferred the current revision petition.

While allowing the revision petition filed by the relatives of the husband, the court also clarified that the petition against the current revision petitioners filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence (DV) Act stands dismissed though the same would continue against other non-applicants.

Case No: S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 335/2023

Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Raj)

Click Here To Read/ Download Order