Partly allowed

Shakuntala W/O. Dattarao Pandit and Others v. Sujata W/O. Arun Pandit

Bombay HC15 Dec 2023APPLN/148/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal application challenging proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act was heard. The High Court held that no domestic relationship existed between applicant No. 2 and the respondent as the complaint lacked averments of living together. The proceeding was accordingly quashed against applicant No. 2.

What did the court decide?

Proceeding bearing Criminal M.A. No. 86/2022 is quashed qua Applicant No. 2.

Shakuntala W/O. Dattarao Pandit and Others Vs Sujata W/O… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2023:BHC-AUG:26924

¶2

--1–

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

942 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2023

¶5

1. Shakuntala w/o Dattarao Pandit,

¶6

2. Rahul Dattarao Pandit,

¶7

3. Dhammapal s/o Dattarao Pandit ...Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Sujata w/o Arun Pandit...Respondent

¶10

Mr. M. M. Parghane, Advocate for the Applicants
Mr. R. D. Thorat, Advocate for the Respondent (through V.C.)

¶11

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

¶12

DATE : 15.12.2023

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1. Heard finally by consent of both sides.

¶15

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants on instructions does

¶16

not press relief to the extent of applicant Nos. 1 and 3. Hence, application is
dismissed as not pressed against them.

¶17

3. As far as applicant no. 2 is concerned, it is the contention of the

¶18

learned counsel for the applicants that as per the allegations in the complaint made by Respondent before the Judicial Magistrate First Class

¶19

942-criapln-148-23.odt

¶20

1 of 4

¶21

--2–

¶22

under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, there is
no specific averment with regard to applicant No.2 staying in joint family
with Respondent.

¶23

4.Learned counsel for the applicant No.2 submits that without their
being domestic relationship as contemplated by Section 2(a) of Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short ‘D.V.’ Act’) proceeding
came to be filed against him with a view to cause harassment to the
applicant no. 2. According to him, applicant no. 2 never shared domestic
relationship with respondent. Thus, the proceeding under the D.V. Act is not
tenable against him.

¶24

5. Learned counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the application

¶25

by drawing attention of the Court to the allegation made against him in the
complaint.

¶26

6. In order to enable a woman i.e. aggrieved person to file proceeding under D.V. Act, existence of ‘domestic relationship’ may be at any point of time, is sine qua non.

¶27

7. Provisions of the D.V. Act defines aggrieved person. Section 2(a) of the D.V. Act reads thus:

¶28

2 of 4

¶29

942-criapln-148-23.odt

¶30

--3–

¶31

“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.

¶32

.It further defined domestic relationship under Section 2(f), which
reads thus:

¶33

“domestic relationship” means a relationship between two
persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived
together in a shared household, when 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.

¶34

8.According to these definitions, domestic relationship between
aggrieved person and respondent is sine qua non to maintain an
proceeding under DV Act. In order to constitute relationship between two
persons as domestic relationship, they must live or at any point of time lived
together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity,
marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or
are family members living together as joint family.

¶35

9.Perusal of application filed by Respondent before Magistrate shows
that there is no averment that applicant no. 2 herein ever lived with
Respondent in aforestated relationships and is in domestic relationship
with the respondent. Thus, the essential condition of living together at least
at any point of time is not met with, in order to maintain any proceeding

¶36

3 of 4

¶37

942-criapln-148-23.odt

¶38

--4–

¶39

against them.

¶40

10.Thus, this Court find substance with the contention that the
applicant no. 2 did not share domestic relationship with the respondent.
The proceeding in question cannot be allowed to be contined against the
applicant no. 2 as it would be abuse of process of Court. In the result, the
application stands partly allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ qua applicant
no. 2. Hence, proceeding bearing Criminal M.A. No. 86/2022 filed under
Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act is quashed qua Applicant No. 2.

¶41

11.Fees of Mr. R. D. Thorat, learned Counsel appointed for Respondent is
quantified @ Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) to be paid by High
Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.

¶42

shp/-

¶43

4 of 4

¶44

942-criapln-148-23.odt

Shakuntala W/O. Dattarao Pandit and Others v. Sujata W/O. Arun Pandit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala W/O. Dattarao Pandit and Others v. Sujata W/O. Arun Pandit

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaikh Abdul Gani Shaikh Gafur Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khayyum Khurhid Mulla Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Babasaheb @ Rahul Gokul Shirgire and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sitaram S/O. Parashram Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raosaheb Yadav Auti Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kailas Bhagwat Chindhe Vs the State of Maharashtra