Delhi District Court
Rakhi vs Ajit Singh & Ors. Page No. 1/10 on 7 December, 2012
Rakhi vs Ajit Singh & Ors. Page No. 1/10
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE : MAHILA COURT: DELHI.
CC No. 433/3/12
PS - Kanjhawala
U/s. Domestic Violence Act.
In Reference :
Smt. Rakhi
W/o Sh. Deepak Kumar
r/o H.No. A926, Village Ladpur,
Tau Bihari Road, PO Kanjhawala,
Delhi110081.
............Complainant/Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sh. Ajit Singh
S/o Sh. Umed Singh
2. Smt. Meena
w/o Sh. Ajit Singh
3. Sh. Ashish
s/o Sh. Ajit Singh
4. Ms. Kajal
d/o Sh. Ajit Singh
5. Ms. Komal
d/o Sh. Ajit Singh
6. Asha
d/o Sh. Ajit Singh
All R/o H.No. A926,
Village Ladpur, Tau Bihari Road, PO Kanjhawala,
Delhi110081. ................. Respondents
Rakhi vs Ajit Singh & Ors. Page No. 2/10
Date of institution of case : 05.10.2012
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 06.12.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 07.12.2012
O R D E R
1. Vide this order I shall give my opinion on the maintainability aspect.
2. Brief necessary facts for deciding this issue are as here under:
3. A complaint was filed by the complainant against the respondents, who are the uncle in law and his family. She has not filed case against her husband or her father in law and his family.
4. DIR was called in this case. DIR was not filed by the Protection Officer and instead of DIR, Protection Officer provided certain information for not preparing the DIR. It was very categorically mentioned by the Protection Officer that complainant had reported to the Protection Officer that she is living with her husband and in laws in a separate house and respondents are living in a separate house. The houses of the aggrieved person and respondents are independent and different with independent kitchen, doors and only joint water taps and joint main exit gate are there. These two houses are built in a big plot. Therefore, in view of the information provided by the aggrieved person, DIR was not prepared and this information was filed by the Protection Officer before the court. After perusing the DIR, this court deemed it appropriate to inquire from the Rakhi vs Ajit Singh & Ors. Page No. 3/10 complainant on these aspects. Therefore, upon inquiry, complainant submitted before the court that she has been living separately with the respondents. She further submitted that in her family, she is living with her husband Deepak, father in law Jagdish, mother in law Ved Kaur and brother in law Praveen. It has been further submitted that the house bearing No.A926 is a big plot and has been separated into two houses in one plot. She has been living with the accused persons and in the other house, other respondents are living who are uncle in law, aunt in law and their sons. She has further submitted that quarrels took place on the issue of common tap, garbage and playing of children. Therefore, in this background, in my considered opinion, it is essential for the complainant to prove herself as aggrieved person and domestic relationship shared between aggrieved person and respondents. The reason being that although D.V. Act is not a penal law but non compliance of an order under D.V. Act has been made penal, hence it becomes duty of this court to see first as to whether there was any domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and respondents.
5. Now, it is essential that prior to give any relief under DV Act whether some conditions are satisfied or not. Hence .....
1. The first question that arises for determination is as to whether the applicant is an aggrieved person?
2. Aggrieved person is defined in Section 2(a) of D.V Act which Rakhi vs Ajit Singh & Ors. Page No. 4/10 reads as under:
(a) "aggrieved person" means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent".
6. A perusal of this section shows that two ingredients needs to be satisfied before a person can be said to be an aggrieved person:
(1) Aggrieved person must be in domestic relationship with the respondent; and (2) Aggrieved person must have been subjected to domestic violence while she was in domestic relationship with the respondent.
7. Section 2(f) defines domestic relationship as under:
(f) "Domestic relationship" means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, where they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family."
8. It is clear from the perusal of section 2(f) that the aggrieved person must establish that she was in relationship with the respondent/ respondents by way of blood, adoption or marriage or were family members living "together" as joint family and was residing with him/them in a shared household.
Rakhi vs Ajit Singh & Ors. Page No. 5/10
9. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that respondents are relatives of the complainant and as the houses were built up in one plot and exit was common, complainant has shared domestic relationship in the alleged shared household together with the respondents.
10. I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the complainant's counsel. In the present case, admittedly, complainant is residing at the separate house from the respondents. Upon inquiry raised by the court complainant herself admitted that she has been residing along with her husband, father in law, mother in law and brother in law, in separate house on the one big plot of the property. It is well settled that prior to seek any relief under D.V. Act, petitioner has to firstly, prima facie show that she is an aggrieved person. The domestic relationship must be there between the aggrieved person and respondent to invoke D.V. Act at the shared household. It is the duty of the court to see that this act is not misused to settle property disputes or to settle personal scores. Hence, keeping this factor in mind, the present case seems to be abuse of process of law.
11. To seek any relief, petitioner has to prima facie show that she lived in domestic relationship in the shared household "together" with the respondent. This living together can be either soon before filing of petition or 'at any point of time'. The term 'at any point of time' under the act means where petitioner had been continuously living at shared household Rakhi vs Ajit Singh & Ors. Page No. 6/10 as a matter of right but for some reasons she had to leave and she was not allowed to reenter. In the instant case, it is the version of the complainant herself that she is residing in a separate portion. Not only she, her whole family is residing separately. She has not alleged any act of domestic violence against her husband or husband's parents. When, she was residing separately in separate portion with her family, then certainly then there can not be any shared domestic relationship with the respondents. Petitioner has not shared any domestic relationship with the respondents. She is not living with the respondents. She has never shared any relationship with the respondents in the alleged shared household. There can be separate household even in one building if, one family starts living separately from the others. Domestic relationship should be existed between the parties under the same roof. In the present case, not only the roof, but kitchen is also separate. There are two independent houses on one plot. By showing common exit or common tap, domestic relationship cannot be even prima facie proved.
12. The present case is nothing else except an abuse of process of law and has been filed only to drag the respondents into unnecessary litigation and to harass them by filing this type of false and frivolous complaint against them just to settle personal scores or disputes.
13. Even before the court, complainant herself has admitted that the dispute is regarding the use of common tap, garbage, playing of children. Rakhi vs Ajit Singh & Ors. Page No. 7/10 In such circumstances, it is apparent that just to settle personal scores or ego issues, present case has been filed. In the information by Protection Officer also it has been mentioned that DIR cannot be prepared as such there is no dispute regarding domestic violence. Hence, the complainant has not chosen the appropriate forum. Resort of Domestic Violence can not be sought to settle the property disputes or personal scores/disputes. In the instant case, it is apparent that to settle personal scores and ego issues petitioner has filed case under D.V. Act to pressurize the respondents who are the uncle in law, aunt in law and their family. The malafide is further apparent from the fact that she has not filed case against her husband and in laws.
14. In view of the above discussion, the present case seems to be more of a dispute to settle personal scores and ego issues than the case of the domestic violence. Hence, the case of the complainant stands dismissed as not maintainable for the reasons that she has failed to show domestic relationship between the parties.
15. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL) MM (MAHILA COURT)/ROHINI 07.12.2012 Announced in the open court today i.e. 07.12.2012 Rakhi vs Ajit Singh & Ors. Page No. 8/10 CC No. 433/3/12 PS - Kanjhawala 07.12.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel Sh. Phool Kumar from DLSA.
Vide separate order dictated and announced in the open court today, the case of the complainant stands dismissed as not maintainable.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL) MM/MAHILA COURT ROHINI/ 07.12.2012 Rakhi vs Ajit Singh & Ors. Page No. 9/10 CC No. 433/3/12 PS - Kanjhawala 06.12.2012 Present: Complainant with counsel Sh. Phool Kumar from DLSA.
Perused the information provided by the Protection Officer in which it has been mentioned by the Protection Officer that DIR could not be prepared on the basis of information provided by the complainant. It is the submission of the Protection Officer that complainant provided the information that she has never lived with the respondents in their house. The complainant's house is separate. Complainant is living with her family. They have independent kitchen, doors. These houses are built up on one plot. Therefore, this court deemed it fit to inquire from the complainant to confirm such information provided by the Protection Officer because such issues need to be decided first. These issues are required to consider maintainability aspect of the present case.
Upon inquiry, complainant has submitted that she has been living separately with the respondents. She has further submitted that in her family, she is living with her husband Deepak, father in law Jagdish, mother in law Ved Kaur and brother in law (dever) Praveen. It has been further submitted that the house bearing No.A926, is a big plot and that has been separated into two houses in one plot. She has been living with the above said accused persons and in the other house, other respondents have been living who are uncle in law, aunt in law and their sons. She has further Rakhi vs Ajit Singh & Ors. Page No. 10/10 submitted that she has never resided in the house of the respondents. She has further submitted that quarrels took place on the issue of common tap, upon the issue of garbage and playing of children. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that this is one house. It has been built up in one plot and exit is common.
Put up for orders on 7.12.2012 at 4 p.m. on maintainability aspect.
(RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL) MM/MAHILA COURT ROHINI/ 06.12.2012