Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This petition has been filed by petitioners No.1 and 2 challenging the order passed by LX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in Criminal Appeal No.615/2019 dated 19.8.2019 whereunder the order dated 7.3.2019 passed by IV Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc. No.113/2018 was confirmed by dismissing the appeal.

2. The factual matrix of the case are that petitioner No.1 is the mother of respondent, petitioner No.2 is the brother of respondent. Respondent is working as a Doctor by profession and her marriage was performed with one Mr.Manohar during the year 2002. Thereafter, she started residing in the house of in-laws at Delhi. She stayed there for few months, thereafter she eloped with Dr.Zubair Khan and the marriage with Mr.Manohar ended by way of decree of divorce. Immediately, she changed her name as Ayesha Zubair and converted herself to Muslim religion and she got married with Dr.Zubair Khan, in her matrimonial home. Subsequently they shifted to UAE and settled down there permanently and there she has given birth to two children. It is further stated that the grandmother of petitioner No.2 one Smt.Savithramma was the absolute owner of property bearing No.50 and 50/1 at Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru. The said property was gifted in favour of the second petitioner. It is further contended that in the first week of October, 2018, respondent came to the house of the petitioners and demanded to give the property to her. When her demand was refused, she picked up quarrel and even went to the extent of causing injury to her parents as well as petitioner No.2. So in this behalf a complaint was also registered against respondent in Crime No.106/2018. As a counterblast, respondent has also filed complaint against both the petitioners and wife of second petitioner before the jurisdictional police. Her complaint is registered in Crime No.105/2018. In that background respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter called as 'DV Act', for short). Thereafter, after service of notice an application was filed by the petitioners with regard to maintainability of such complaint. The trial Court dismissed the said application. Appellate Court confirmed the same. Challenging the same the petitioners are before this Court.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and respondent.

4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that complainant is not an aggrieved person as contemplated under Section 2(a) of DV Act. It is his further submission that the petition as against the petitioners is not maintainable under Section 12 of the DV Act. In order to maintain the petition there must be domestic relationship as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. It is his further submission that the respondent-complainant is not in a shared household. If all these definitions are read together with reference to the factual matrix of the case, no complaint can be entertained under Section 12 of the DV Act. It is his further submission that the respondent got married in the year 2002 and thereafter she has divorced the first husband and got married to a person who is not belonging to her religion and thereafter she is residing permanently at Dubai. It is his further submission that she has filed a suit for partition for claiming partition in the property and she is not a divorcee so as to take shelter under the DV Act. The trial Court and appellate Court without considering the said factual matrix and the proposition of law have come to a wrong conclusion and have wrongly dismissed the application. The application filed by the respondent is nothing but abuse of process of law. It is his further submission that domestic relationship comes to an end once the respondent daughter moved out of the shared household and established her own household with her husband. In order to substantiate the said contention he relied upon the decision in the case of Vijay Verma Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Another reported in AIR 2011 (NOC) 171 (DEL.). Petitioner No.2 and respondent are real brother and sister and respondent has filed a suit for partition. In order to file complaint under the DV Act, there should not be partition in the family. In order to attract the provisions of the DV Act, the respondent daughter must be lived together in a shared household. Continuously living in the shared household is must in order to attract the provisions of DV Act. In order to substantiate his argument he relied upon the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.Cr.C.No.9246/2014 disposed of on 22.9.2015 in the case of Rajkishore Shukla Vs. Asha Shukla. It is his further submission that if the respondent resides separately, then under such circumstances, there is no domestic relationship between the petitioners and the respondent. In this regard he relied upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Anitha W/o Anand Tambe Vs. Sri.Anand S/o Eknath Tambe. It is his further submission that the aggrieved person cannot seek protection under the DV Act. Though she is a female member, she is entitled only when she satisfies the other provisions of the DV Act. In order to substantiate his argument he relied upon the decision in the case of Hiral P. Harsora and Others Vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Others reported in (2016) 10 SCC 165 and also another decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to set aside the impugned order.

cannot be defined as "at any point of time in the past" whether the right to live survives or not. For example if there is a joint family where father has several sons with daughters-in-law living in a house and ultimately sons, one by one or together,

- 18 -

decide that they should live separate with their own families and they establish separate household and start living with their respective families separately at different places; can it be said that wife of each of the sons can claim a right to live in the house of father-in-law because at one point of time she along with her husband had lived in the shared household. If this meaning is given to the shared household then the whole purpose of Domestic Violence Act shall stand defeated. Where a family member leaves the shared household to establish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on the basis of domestic relationship. Domestic relationship comes to an end once the son along with his family moved out of the joint family and established his own household or when a daughter gets married and establishes her own household with her husband. Such son, daughter, daughter-in- law, son-in-law, if they have any right in the property say because of coparcenary or

(2) The aggrieved person shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law.

xxxx 19(1) While disposing of an application under Sub-section (1) of Section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order-

(a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household;