Karnataka High Court
Smt. Pooja vs Smt. Matura Bai on 12 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201187 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. POOJA W/O MANOJKUMAR HILALPURE,
(D/O BABURAO BORALE),
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O BIDAR NOW RESIDING AT SHIVASHANT NAGAR,
KOPPAL, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL.
2. BABURAO S/O CHANDRAPPA BORALE,
AGE: 63 YEARS OCC: RETD. BANK EMPLOYEE,
R/O HUMNABAD, NOW RESIDING AT SHIVASHANT
NAGAR, KOPPAL TQ: DIST: KOPPAL.
Digitally signed by
3. SMT. BALIKA W/O BABURAO BORALE,
NIJAMUDDIN AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH R/O HUMNABAD, NOW RESIDING AT SHIVASHANT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
NAGAR KOPPAL, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL.
4. NITIN S/O BABURAO BORALE,
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: PRIVATE JOB
R/O HUMNABAD, NOW RESIDING AT BENGALORE.
5. NIKHIL S/O BABURAO BORALE,
AGE: 35 YEARS OCCU: PRIVATE JOB
R/O HUMNABAD, NOW RESIDING AT BENGALORE.
6. SULEKHABAI D/O BASAPPA ZILLE,
AGE: 75 YEARS OCC: NIL
R/O SADASHIVA NAGAR KALABURGI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. VENKATRAO S/O BASAPPA ZILLE
AGE: 54 YEARS OCCU: BSNL EMPLOYEE,
R/O SADASHIVNAGAR KALABURGI.
8. SUREKHA W/O VENKATROA ZILLE,
AGE: 50 YEARS OCCU: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O SADASHIVA NAGAR KALABURGI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. CHANDRAKALA AND
SRI B. C. JAKA, ADVOCATES)
AND:
SMT MATURA BAI W/O MOHANRAO HILALPURE,
AGED ABOUT:- 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O MEHAKAR VILLAGE, BHALKI
TQ: DIST: BIDAR-585328.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW),
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL MISCE. NO.466/2025, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C BHALKI
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE COMMISSION OF
ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION D.V.ACT,2005.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 27.10.2025 COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
This captioned petition is by the daughter-in-law, her
parents and siblings seeking quashing of the proceedings
instituted by respondent/mother-in-law against the
daughter-in-law and her family members in
Crl.Misc.No.466/2025.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The respondent, who is the mother-in-law of
petitioner No.1, has instituted proceedings under Section
12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act, 2005") seeking reliefs
contemplated under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the
Act, 2005. In the complaint, the respondent asserts that
petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of her son,
Manojkumar, and that their marriage was solemnized on
19.02.2017 in accordance with customs and rituals
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
observed in their community. It is further averred that the
couple was blessed with a daughter on 03.06.2018.
3. The respondent alleges that petitioner No.1, in
collusion with certain anti-social elements, lodged a
criminal complaint before the Koppal Women Police Station
by furnishing a false address. Based on the said complaint,
a case in Crime No.10/2019 came to be registered for the
offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian
Penal Code against the respondent, her son and her
husband. The respondent asserts that her son was
arrested and remained in judicial custody for four days. It
is contended that neither she nor her husband were aware
of the filing of the said complaint, and upon learning of the
same, they approached petitioner No.1 seeking an
explanation. According to the respondent, petitioner No.1
along with petitioner Nos.2 to 8 abused them in filthy
language and curtly informed them to pursue their
remedies in Court.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. The respondent further contends that, left with
no option, her son Manojkumar initiated matrimonial
proceedings in M.C.No.144/2019 seeking dissolution of
marriage. After full-fledged adjudication, the Family Court
rejected the petition for divorce and instead passed a
decree for restitution of conjugal rights directing petitioner
No.1 to rejoin the marital home within one month. The
respondent alleges that despite the decree attaining
finality, petitioner No.1 failed to comply with the said
order. It is also alleged that petitioner No.1 has instituted
multiple proceedings against the son of respondent no. 2
and her family members, including Crl.Misc.No.268/2020
seeking maintenance, Misc.No.1/2023 seeking an order
restraining a second marriage, O.S.No.113/2019 seeking
partition, and Misc.No.168/2025 for recovery of arrears of
maintenance. The respondent adds that some of these
proceedings were subsequently withdrawn by petitioner
No.1, indicating malafide intent and harassment.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. According to the respondent, petitioner No.1
rejoined the marital home on 08.03.2025 pursuant to the
decree for restitution passed by the Family Court, but
shortly thereafter, on 03.04.2025, she picked up a quarrel
with the respondent and Manojkumar. It is alleged that
soon thereafter, petitioner Nos.2 to 8 arrived at Mehkar
village, abused the respondent in filthy language,
quarreled with her, and forcibly took petitioner No.1 back
to their parental home. The respondent also alleges that
petitioner No.1 has subsequently instituted another
proceeding in Crl.Misc.No.384/2025 solely to harass her
and her family. By referring to these incidents, the
respondent asserts that she has suffered humiliation,
mental cruelty, physical agony and emotional distress at
the hands of petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 to 8. She
therefore seeks protection orders under Section 18 of the
Act, 2005 restraining the petitioners from committing acts
of domestic violence against her.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners,
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contends
that the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Act,
2005 are nothing but a counterblast to the matrimonial
and criminal litigations initiated earlier by petitioner No.1.
By placing reliance on Sections 2(f) and 2(s) of the Act,
2005, it is submitted that the complaint is not
maintainable as against petitioner Nos.2 to 8 as they do
not fall within the ambit of "domestic relationship" or
"shared household" as defined under the Act. It is
contended that petitioner Nos.2 to 8 have never resided
with the respondent at any point of time, and merely
being related to petitioner No.1 cannot render them liable
in a proceeding under Section 12. Reliance is placed on
the following decisions:
i. Mrs. Zeba Mohasin Pathan @ Zeba Easak
Pathan and Others vs. State of Maharashtra
Writ petition no. 5185/2018
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
ii. Sunny Mathew vs. State of Kerala 2024 SCC
OnLine Ker 7182
7. It is further submitted by the petitioners'
counsel that the respondent/mother-in-law has misused
the provisions of the Act, 2005 by arraying not only
petitioner No.1 but also her extended family members who
never lived with the respondent. It is also argued that the
materials on record, including the pleadings in the
matrimonial cases, clearly demonstrate that petitioner
No.1 and her husband have been living separately from
the respondent since 2018, and therefore the existence of
a shared household or domestic relationship is absent. It is
urged that the complaint is a retaliatory measure intended
to harass the petitioners, and if permitted to continue,
would amount to gross abuse of process of law.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
places reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High
Court in Smt. Garima and Others vs. State of U.P. and
Another 2025:AHC-LKO:18831 to contend that a
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
mother-in-law is not precluded from maintaining an
application under the Act, 2005. It is argued that the Act is
a piece of beneficial legislation intended to protect women
from domestic violence, and its remedies are available not
only to wives or daughters-in-law but to any woman who
alleges domestic violence within the domestic relationship.
The learned counsel submits that petitioner Nos.2 to 8
have played an active role in instigating petitioner No.1,
thereby aggravating the strained relationship between the
respondent and her son. Hence, according to the
respondent, her application against petitioner Nos.2 to 8 is
maintainable.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides
and having meticulously examined the pleadings and
documents available on record, the following points arise
for consideration:
1. Whether the respondent/mother-in-law has
made out a prima facie case to maintain an
application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 against
petitioner No.1/daughter-in-law in the absence of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
specific pleadings and cogent materials
demonstrating that the parties shared a common
household and were in a domestic relationship based
on such shared household?
2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the
respondent under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 are
maintainable as against petitioner Nos.2 to 8, who
are relatives of petitioner No.1 and who admittedly
never resided with the respondent, thereby lacking
the prerequisite of a domestic relationship under the
Act, 2005?
Finding on points:
10. The Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, 2005 is a remedial and beneficial legislation
enacted with the avowed objective of providing more
effective protection to the constitutional and legal rights of
women who are subjected to violence within the domestic
sphere. The Statement of Objects and Reasons expressly
records that the Act aims to protect women from violence
"of any kind occurring within the family" and to secure
their right to a life of dignity guaranteed under Articles 14,
15 and 21 of the Constitution. The Act primarily provides
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
civil remedies for enforcement of rights relating to
residence, protection, monetary reliefs, maintenance,
custody of children and compensation. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15
SCC 755, emphasised that the Act,2005 is intended to
provide a civil law remedy to protect women from abusive
relationships and to prevent the recurrence of domestic
violence in society. Again, in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi
v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 INSC 734, the Hon'ble Apex Court
reiterated that the legislation was enacted to combat the
pervasive social menace of domestic violence and to
safeguard women who are victims of such violence in any
form. Similarly, the Madras High Court in Vandhana v. T.
Srikanth, 2007 SCC OnLine Mad 553, noted that the
Act,2005 incorporates and gives effect to Recommendation
No. 12 of the CEDAW Committee (1989), which India
ratified in June 1993. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in
Ishpal Singh Kahai v. Ramanjeet Kaur, 2011 SCC
OnLine Bom 412, stressed that the Act aims to extend
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
statutory protection to women in the domestic sphere
irrespective of proprietary rights, ensuring their security
and preventing repeated acts of violence. Thus, the
Act,2005 constitutes a progressive step in strengthening
the legal framework intended to shield women from
domestic abuse and secure their fundamental dignity.
11. Under Section 2(a) of the Act, an "aggrieved
person" includes any woman who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges that
she has been subjected to domestic violence. The Act,
under Section 2(f), defines "domestic relationship" broadly
as a relationship between persons who live or have at any
point of time lived together in a shared household and are
related by consanguinity, marriage, or through
relationships in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as
family members living together in a joint family. The
expression "respondent", originally restricted to an "adult
male person" under Section 2(q), has undergone
significant evolutionary interpretation. In Hiral P.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, AIR 2016
SC 4774, the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down the
words "adult male person" as being contrary to the object
of the legislation, thereby widening the scope of
"respondent" to include any person, irrespective of gender,
against whom the aggrieved woman seeks relief.
12. The definition of "shared household" in Section
2(s) encompasses any household where the aggrieved
woman lives or has lived in a domestic relationship,
irrespective of ownership or title, and includes property
belonging to the joint family of which the respondent is a
member. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra
Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, AIR 2020 SC 5397, overruled
the restrictive interpretation in S.R. Batra v. Tarun
Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, and held that even where the
shared household belongs exclusively to the husband or
any relative of the husband, it constitutes a "shared
household" if the aggrieved woman has lived therein in a
domestic relationship. Consequently, the statutory and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
judicial framework jointly emphasis that sisters, widows,
mothers, daughters, or women in live-in relationships who
have resided in a shared household are all entitled to
invoke the protective umbrella of the Act.
13. In the present case, it is an admitted position
on record that petitioner No.1 is the daughter-in-law of the
respondent, whereas petitioner Nos.2 to 8 are her parents,
siblings and other relatives who have no matrimonial or
domestic nexus with the respondent. The materials placed
on record clearly indicate that the respondent continues to
reside with her husband at the matrimonial home, while
petitioner No.1, owing to longstanding marital discord with
her husband Manojkumar, has been living separately and
is admittedly not residing either with the respondent or
with her husband.
14. It would be crucial to refer to respondent's own
averments in the Section 12 application, the relevant
portion of which is extracted below;
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
"3. That, on the advise of the elders
of society and family well wishers of
respondent No. 1 and parents of
Manojkumar, the respondent No. 1 has
join the company of Manojkumar and
started residing at Hyderabad for the
further education of respondent No. 1 and
the entire expenses of higher education of
respondent No. 1 has been incurred by
Manojkumar and his parents. Further the
respondent No. 1 is again started
quarreling with the Manojkumar and his
parents and left the company of
Manojkumar and started to resided with
her parents.
4. That, on 03-06-2018 the baby
girl born to the respondent No. 1 through
Manojkumar on that occasion the parents
of Manojkumar had performed the Cradle
ceremony of Manvitha by expending huge
amount of money, thereafter Manojkumar
has been to Goa for P.hd. at Birla
Institute of Technology at that time the
parents of the Manojkumar requested to
the respondent No. 1 to come with them
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
at Bidar, but the respondent o. flatly
denied to come with the parents of
Manojkumar and quarrelling with them
and voluntarily residing at her parent
house at Humnabad."
6. ...................The respondent No. 1
rejoined the company of Manjokumar and
family with the complainant on 28-03-
2025 as per the direction of Hon'ble
Family Court Koppal. Suddenly on 03-04-
2025 the respondent No. 1 started the
quarreling with the parents of the
Manojkumar and the respondent No. 2 to
8 come to the village Mehkar to take back
the respondent No. 1, at that time the all
respondents have quarreled with the
complainant and abused in filthy
language, for that the complainant has
called to the Police on 112 as because
there was order of family court Koppal
and requested the parents of the
respondent not to take back her, but they
are forcibly take back her, so the
concerned Police Mehkar has taken
undertaking letter from the respondent
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
No. 1 and thereafter the respondent No. 1
and her parents left the village Mehkar.
Thereafter immediately the respondent
No. 1 filed a Criminal Misc Case under
D.V. Act. in Criminal Misc No. 384/2025
before the Hon'ble Prl. JMFC Court at
Koppal to harsh the complainant and her
family members, these case are
constitute to domestic violence the
complainant and her family members.
(Emphasis supplied)
15. It is evident that petitioner No.1 never lived
with the respondent/mother-in-law in a shared household
so as to create a domestic relationship contemplated
under Sections 2(a) and 2(f) of the Act,2005. The
respondent categorically states that petitioner No.1
resided with her husband at Hyderabad for pursuing
higher education, and thereafter, due to marital discord,
voluntarily left the company of her husband and began
residing with her parents at Humnabad. Even in 2018,
when the respondent requested her to reside with them in
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
Bidar, petitioner No.1 unequivocally declined and
continued to reside with her parents. The pleadings further
reveal that although a decree for restitution of conjugal
rights was passed on 19.04.2022, petitioner No.1 rejoined
her husband only on 28.03.2025 and stayed for a brief
period before disagreements arose on 03.04.2025. It is
only thereafter, and admittedly at the instance of marital
strife, that petitioner Nos.2 to 8 allegedly came to Mehkar
to take petitioner No.1 back. These factual assertions
unequivocally establish that petitioner No.1 was neither
residing with the respondent nor sharing a household with
her at any relevant point in time; nor have petitioner
Nos.2 to 8 ever resided with the respondent or borne any
domestic relationship with her. The statutory requirement
of cohabitation or shared household which is indispensable
for maintaining a petition under Section 12 is therefore
wholly absent.
16. On the contrary, the Section 12 petition
discloses that the son of the respondent resides separately
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
from both petitioner No.1 and the respondent, further
negating any allegation of domestic violence occurring
"within the family" as envisaged by the Act. The
respondent's grievance is predicated only on occasional
quarrels and the fact that petitioner Nos.2 to 8 later
accompanied petitioner No.1, which by no stretch meets
the legal threshold under Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(q) and
2(s). Seen in the context of multiple prior legal
proceedings initiated by petitioner No.1 such as the
Section 498-A complaint, maintenance proceedings, and
the restitution litigation, the present action under Section
12 is nothing but a retaliatory measure intended to
counteract those proceedings. The Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act is a remedial legislation
enacted to shield women from violence within a domestic
setting; it cannot be used inversely by a mother-in-law to
initiate proceedings against a daughter-in-law living
separately, much less against her parents, siblings or
relatives who have no domestic nexus with the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
respondent. The absence of foundational pleadings,
coupled with the respondent's own admissions, leaves no
doubt that the proceedings in Criminal Misc. No. 466/2025
are wholly untenable and constitute an abuse of the
process of law.
17. In such circumstances, the foundational
requirement of a domestic relationship as defined under
Section 2(f) of the Act, namely, that the aggrieved person
and the respondent must have lived together in a shared
household, is conspicuously absent. The statutory scheme
of the Act, 2005 is intended to protect women who are
victims of domestic violence within the domestic sphere,
and the legislative definition of "aggrieved person" under
Section 2(a) predicates the existence of a subsisting or
past domestic relationship within a shared household.
Therefore, when the daughter-in-law is not residing with
the respondent and has never lived together with
petitioner Nos.2 to 8 at any point of time, the respondent
cannot invoke Section 12 of the Act to seek a protection
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
order under Section 18 prohibiting alienation of properties
belonging to her family, nor can she claim compensation
by alleging physical or mental trauma against persons with
whom she shares no domestic relationship.
18. The Act, 2005 does not contemplate civil
remedies being sought by a mother-in-law against a
daughter-in-law living separately, much less against the
daughter-in-law's parents or siblings who are complete
strangers to the shared household. The mere existence of
strained matrimonial relations between petitioner No.1 and
her husband cannot, by itself, confer jurisdiction under the
Act, 2005 in favour of the respondent, particularly when
the son himself is residing away from the respondent due
to employment and the pleadings do not demonstrate any
act of domestic violence committed within the domestic
framework contemplated by the Act. Consequently, the
application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the
Act, 2005 suffers from a fundamental lack of
maintainability as the essential ingredients of "aggrieved
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
person," "respondent," and "shared household" are neither
pleaded nor established.
19. A careful examination of the pleadings and
materials on record clearly demonstrates that the reliefs
sought by the respondent in the application under Section
12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005 are wholly misconceived and legally
unsustainable insofar as they pertain to petitioner Nos.2 to
8, who are the parents, siblings and relatives of petitioner
No.1/daughter-in-law. The Act, under Section 2(a), limits
the status of an "aggrieved person" to a woman who is, or
has been, in a domestic relationship with the
"respondent," while Section 2(f) defines a "domestic
relationship" as one requiring that the parties must have
lived together at any point of time in a shared household.
Likewise, Section 2(q), after the authoritative
interpretation in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum
Narottamdas Harsora (supra), expands the expression
"respondent" to include any person against whom relief is
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
sought, but still subject to the condition that such person
must have been in a domestic relationship with the
aggrieved woman. In the present case, petitioner Nos.2 to
8 are admittedly strangers to the shared household of the
respondent; they have never resided with the respondent
nor shared any domestic arrangement that would bring
them within the statutory ambit of a domestic relationship.
The Act, 2005 does not permit roping in of non-resident
relatives merely because they are related to the daughter-
in-law; nor does it enable the respondent to seek
sweeping protection orders, prohibitory directions against
alienation of her family properties, or compensation from
persons who have no domestic nexus or proximity
contemplated under the Act.
20. The petition, when viewed in the backdrop of
the admitted facts, unmistakably reveals its retaliatory
character. The record shows that petitioner
No.1/daughter-in-law has instituted multiple proceedings
against the respondent's son and his family including a
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
criminal complaint under Section 498-A of IPC, a
maintenance petition, matrimonial litigation, and other
miscellaneous proceedings arising from marital discord
with her husband. It is in this context that the respondent,
instead of restricting her grievance, has chosen to invoke
proceedings under the Act, 2005 against not only the
daughter-in-law but also her entire parental family, which
on the face of it indicates an attempt to pressurize or
counteract the legal steps initiated by petitioner No.1. The
Act, 2005, being a beneficial statute enacted to protect
women from domestic violence within the domestic
sphere, cannot be used as a tool for settling personal
scores or for dragging into litigation persons with whom no
domestic relationship exists under Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(q)
and 2(s). Consequently, the reliefs sought against
petitioner Nos.2 to 8 are fundamentally outside the
framework of the Act, rendering the petition wholly
untenable and an abuse of the legal process.
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
21. In light of the statutory scheme of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
and the judicial pronouncements governing its
interpretation, it becomes abundantly clear that the
present proceedings are fundamentally misconceived.
Applying these well-settled principles to the facts of the
present case, the respondent/mother-in-law cannot be
treated as an "aggrieved person" nor can petitioner Nos.2
to 8 be treated as "respondents" within the meaning of the
Act.
22. The admitted factual position is that the
respondent resides separately with her husband in her
matrimonial home, while her son/husband of petitioner
No.1, is living away from both the respondent and
petitioner No.1. The records further establish that due to
marital discord, petitioner No.1 has been living separately
and has not resided with the respondent for several years.
These circumstances unmistakably establish that there is
no shared household, no cohabitation, and no domestic
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
relationship between the respondent and petitioner No.1,
and certainly none with petitioner Nos.2 to 8, who are
merely her parental relatives. In the absence of the
foundational elements of a domestic relationship, the
respondent's attempt to invoke Section 12 of the Act,2005
to seek protection orders, prohibitory directions against
alienation of her family properties, and compensation from
the petitioners falls squarely outside the statutory
framework.
23. As consistently held in the judgments cited
above, the Act is remedial, not punitive, and its
mechanisms cannot be stretched beyond the legislative
intent to encompass parties who are strangers to the
shared household. Therefore, the present petition under
Section 12 of the Act, 2005, insofar as it proceeds against
petitioner No.1 as well as petitioner Nos.2 to 8, is not
maintainable and constitutes an abuse of the process of
law. Accordingly , the points for consideration Nos.(i) and
(ii) are answered in the 'negative'. Hence, the following:
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767
CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORDER
I. The Criminal Petition is allowed. II. The proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.466/2025 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Bhalki filed under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are hereby quashed .
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SRT List No.: 2 Sl No.: 50 CT:SI