Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Ms. Swati Tanwar W/O Shri. Pawan Tanwar vs Mr. Ashok Tanwar S/O Late Shri. Babu Ram on 29 March, 2022

            IN THE COURT OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR
            ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 : SOUTH
           DISTRICT SAKET COURT : NEW DELHI

CA No.19/2022
CNR no. DLST010002922022

       Ms. Swati Tanwar W/o Shri. Pawan Tanwar
       R/o House No. 13, Chandan Hulla, Near
       Hanuman Mandir, Near MCD School,
       Chattarpur, New Delhi 110074
                                    .....      Appellant

                        VERSUS

     1. Mr. Ashok Tanwar S/o Late Shri. Babu Ram
        House No. 13, Chandan Hulla, Near Hanuman
        Mandir, Near MCD School, Chattarpur, New
        Delhi -110074

     2. Ms. Dharamwati Tanwar W/o Shri. Ashok Tanwar
        House No. 13, Chandan Hulla, Near Hanuman
        Mandir, Near MCD School, Chattarpur, New
        Delhi -110074
                                     .....        Respondents


Date of institution of appeal        : 10.01.2022
Arguments heard on                   : 28.03.2022
Date of judgment                     :29.03.2022

                           JUDGMENT

1. Present appeal is filed under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "PWDV Act"), for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 16.12.2021 passed by the Court of Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), South District, Saket Court, New Delhi in CT. case no.1608/2021, titled as CA No. 19/2022 Ms.Swati Tanwar Vs. Ashok Tanwar & Ors Page No.1/9 "Swati Tanwar Vs. Ashok Tanwar & Ors" whereby Ld.Trial Court dismissed the complaint of appellant filed u/s 12 of PWDV Act.

2. Brief facts of the case, as set up in the appeal, are that respondents are the father in law and mother in law of the appellant. Appellant was married to Pawan Tanwar, son of respondents, on 25.01.2008. The said marriage was solemnized against the will and consent of the respondents due to which the appellant & her husband were not allowed to enter into the premises of the ancestral property. After wedding appellant and her husband started living separately in a rented accommodation. After lockdown in the year 2020 due to pandemic, the appellant and her husband did not have any sufficient funds with them left due to which the husband along with appellant decided to move into the ancestral property located in the Chattarpur in the year May 2020 where the respondents live as well and since that day the respondents started to harm and injure the mental health of the appellant and also caused emotional and verbal abuse to the appellant by abusing her and passing sexual remarks with the intention to violating the dignity of a woman and moreover by demanding dowry. Husband of the appellant suffered loss in business due to which he was unable to take care of his family and respondents played their tricks to kick out the appellant from the ancestral property. Respondents since May 2020 have prohibited and restricted the appellant and her husband to access and to use the resources and facilities like filtered water, the bathroom, the electricity supply, etc. Husband of the appellant CA No. 19/2022 Ms.Swati Tanwar Vs. Ashok Tanwar & Ors Page No.2/9 tried all his best efforts to convince and persuade the respondents but unfortunately respondents did not care to perceive and understand. Respondents even threatened appellant by stating that "we will kill your child someday and if you do not want us to kill your child then you divorce our child (The Husband), so that we can get rid of you forever". Respondents kept a conditional situation that if she want to stay with the husband then she has to get Rs 50,00,000/- from her mother's house. Respondents passed abrasive comments like "tu paida kyu hui, tere maa baap ne janam kyu diya, tu mar jati, tu prostitute hai, tere jaise log ek hi kaam kar sakte hai or wo hai prostitution, na jane kaha se mil gayi ye hamare larke ko, etc. Respondents even said to the appellant "that a lady like you should be raped in the open area and the only place you ladies like you deserve is a brothel. There is no such place for people like you in our home and the best way you can have a shelter is by sleeping in the night with the high community of people in chattarpur where you will get the shelter along with the money to pay us the rent. Even ask you child to work at some dhaba so that he will earn as well to pay us. We do not know from where our son has found you and why did he marry you. If he would have married to someone of our choice then he would have been more happy and even we would have been happy. That you don't even look sexy, charming and neither have you got any such good sexual features due to which he did marry you. You are good for nothing." Appellant filed a police complaint in writing on 06.11.2021 vide D.D. No. 40-A against the respondents but no action has been taken nor any enquiry was made.

3. Appellant filed a petition/complaint u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and for the determination of the facts, case was listed on 27.11.2021. After the facts were determined and after securing the Domestic Incident Report (DIR) submitted by the Protection Officer, case was listed on 16.12.2021 for summoning of the respondents. On 16.12.2021 in lieu of summoning the respondents, Ld.MM dismissed the complaint/petition of the appellant/complainant on the grounds stating "that primarily the aggrieved and her husband were living separately after marriage and had established their own household. Moreover, considering the DIR and the statement of the aggrieved recorded earlier in the day, since the aggrieved has been residing separately from the proposed respondents in a room given to her adjacent to the house of the respondents, it can be said that prima facie there is no domestic relationship between the aggrieved and the proposed respondents. There is no such domestic relationship between the parties in the sense of sharing the same household goods or the same kitchen. The aggrieved may have other remedies in law available to her however the present application under section 12 of the PWDV Act is not maintainable since the proposed respondents do not fit into the definition of 'Respondent' as laid out in the PWDV Act. Hence the present application is hereby dismissed."

4. Ld. Counsel for appellant has submitted that Ld. CA No. 19/2022 Ms.Swati Tanwar Vs. Ashok Tanwar & Ors Page No.4/9 Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) has passed impugned order in a very negligent manner without considering the facts of the case. It is further stated that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) did not care to understand this fact that even if there are separate kitchens in the same household and if there are adjacent rooms next to each other in which the outer-exterior boundary wall is same, so shall, be considered as a one home and a shared household. The entrance is common and access to that entrance is same, even if there are separate kitchens. It is further stated that judgments referred by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court) while dismissing the petition are in itself not applicable and valid with respect to the facts of the case. It is further stated that order passed by Ld.MM is absolutely vague and without considering the facts of the case. It is further stated that Ld.MM did not care to acknowledge the fact that the appellant and the respondents are living together in the shared household as it has a common entrance and the outer boundary wall of the premises is same. It is further stated that Ld.MM did not care to acknowledge the appellant has been treated all through her married life with the utmost cruelty in the physical, emotional, mental abuse manner by the Respondents and they have committed numerous acts of domestic violence.

5. Ld.Counsel for respondents has submitted that there is no domestic relation between appellant and respondents, hence, there is no illegality or infirmity committed by Ld.Trial Court by passing impugned order.

6. The only issue involved in present appeal is that whether in the given facts and circumstances, there exists domestic relationship between appellant and respondents or not.

7. Appellant has dispute and filed complaint under Domestic Violence Act against her in-laws. She has no any grievance against her husband. Appellant appeared before this Court alongwith her husband and on the query of the Court they have admitted that after marriage in 2008 against the wishes of in-laws they started residing in Janak Puri area and in May, 2020 they shifted in the house where they are presently residing. It is stated by appellant and her husband that the house is ancestral. It is admitted by them that they used to pay their own charges of electricity used by them. They also admitted that they are cooking food separately only for themselves and their one minor child. In a copy of complaint written to police appellant has stated that respondent has disconnected the electricity of their house. It is stated by the respondents that in 2020 appellant and her husband and child were allowed to reside on rent in portion of house which was built up by the father of respondent no.1. Rent deed in this regard was also executed between husband of appellant and respondent no.1 and now husband of appellant and appellant in the garb of complaint under PWDV Act trying to grab that house.

8. In judgment Raj Kishore Shukla vs. Ashar Shukla of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in M. Cr C. No. 9246/2014 decided on 22.09.2015, it was held as under:-

"This meaning of domestic relationship has sense when we come to definition of domestic violence and the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act gives remedy to the aggrieved person against domestic violence. The domestic violence can take place only when one is living in the shared household with the respondents. The act of abuses emotional or economic, physical or sexual, verbal or non verbal, if committed, when one is living in the same shared household constitute domestic violence. However, such act of violence can be committed even otherwise also when one is living separate. When such acts of violence take place when one is living separate, these may be punishable under different provisions of IPC or other Penal Laws but, they cannot be covered under Domestic Violence Act.

..................domestic violence is a violence which is committed when parties are in domestic relationship, sharing same household and sharing all the household goods with an opportunity to commit violence."

9. In 'Om Prakash Syngal & Others Vs. Shimla Garg' Crl Misc No. M-24058/14, it has been held by Punjab & Haryana High Court that:

"The purpose of PWDV Act is to give remedy to aggrieved persons against Domestic Violence. The Domestic Violence can take place only when one is living in shared household with the respondents. The acts of abuse, emotional, economic, physical, if committed when one is living in same CA No. 19/2022 Ms.Swati Tanwar Vs. Ashok Tanwar & Ors Page No.7/9 shared household constitute domestic violence. However, such acts of violence can be committed even otherwise when one is living separate. When such acts of violence takes place when one is living separate, these may be punishable under different provisions of IPC or other criminal law, but they cannot be covered under PWDV Act. One has to make distinction violence committed on a person living separate in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in shared household."

10. In the case in hand, appellant is residing with her husband and child separately from the respondents. Living in the portion of same building does not constitute the domestic relationship. Appellant has not only separate kitchen but she and her husband used to pay the electricity charges of their own use, hence, there is no hesitation to hold that appellant is residing in separate household but not in a shared household. In absence of shared household there is no domestic relationship between the appellant and respondent as defined under PWDV Act.

11. Ld.Trial Court relying on the judgment 'Harbans Lal Malik Vs. Payal Malik', 2010(3) CC Cases (HC)543 and 'Vijay Verma Vs. State of NCT of Delhi & anr.' passed in Crl.Misc.No.3878/2009 has rightly hold that respondents do not fit into the definition of 'Respondent" as laid down in PWDV Act and dismissed the complaint filed by appellant.

12. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the CA No. 19/2022 Ms.Swati Tanwar Vs. Ashok Tanwar & Ors Page No.8/9 impugned order of the trial court. The appeal is found meritless and accordingly dismissed.

Appeal file be consigned to record room.

Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court.

Announced in open Court on 29.3.22. Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR Date:

                                             KUMAR           2022.03.31
                                                             11:39:47 +0530

                                              (Anil Kumar)
                                      Addl. Sessions Judge-03(South)
                                    Saket Courts/New Delhi/ 29.3.22




CA No. 19/2022
Ms.Swati Tanwar Vs. Ashok Tanwar   & Ors                   Page No.9/9