Allowed¶30

Savita Devidas Adhane v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Sept 2025WP/1208/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

DV Act 2005 quashing; vague and omnibus allegations; no specific role attributed; no shared household; Section 12 PWDVA; in-laws of complainant; inherent jurisdiction of High Court; PWDVA Application No. 74 of 2021; JMFC Paithan; Criminal Application No. 2922 of 2025; Aurangabad Bench; Abhay J. Mantri; December 22, 2025; admission-stage disposal; Rule made absolute; no costs.

What did the court decide?

PWDVA Application No. 74 of 2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicants; Rule made absolute; no order as to costs. ¶30

Savita Devidas Adhane vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

PWDVA Application No. 74 of 2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicants; Rule made absolute; no order as to costs.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceeding PWDVA Application No.74 of 2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, claiming reliefs under Sections 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 23 of the DV Act, 2005, should be quashed against the applicants (original respondent Nos.4 to 6). +2 more

¶22

Court's answer

It is appropriate to quash the proceedings filed against the applicants, as they do not prima facie reveal that the applicants have caused any domestic violence against respondent No.2 so as to attract the provisions of the DV Act against them.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The allegations against the applicants are vague and omnibus; no specific averments have been made against them and no particular role has been attributed to them in the proceedings.

¶23

Key takeaways

Even taken at face value, the averments in the application do not disclose any specific instance of domestic violence allegedly committed by the applicants against respondent No.2; mere general and omnibus allegations that the applicants were also involved in causing domestic violence are insufficient to force them to undergo trial.ratio¶27
In the absence of any specific role attributed to the applicants so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it would be unjust and unfair to compel them to undergo the tribulations of a trial.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Bench at Aurangabad) | Criminal Application No. 2922 of 2025 | Abhay J. Mantri, J. | 22-12-2025 | Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 — Sections 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 23 — quashing of PWDVA Application No. 74 of 2021 (JMFC, Paithan) against applicants, being original respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and relations of respondent No. 2 — allegations against applicants found vague and omnibus, with no specific averments and no particular role attributed — averments, even taken at face value, disclose no specific instance of domestic violence by applicants — mere general and omnibus allegations insufficient to force applicants to undergo trial — absence of any specific role attracting the ingredients of Sections 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 23 renders compulsion to trial unjust and unfair — counsel for respondent No. 2 did not dispute that applicants reside separately from respondent No. 2 and her husband — separate residence by itself indicates applicants never lived in a shared household with respondent No. 2 — proceedings quashed and set aside to the extent of the applicants — Rule made absolute — no order as to costs.

¶1

8.APPLN.2922.2025.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2922 OF 2025

¶4

Aniruddha Sunil Ambedkar, Age : 40 Years, Occu : Service, R/o. Plot No. D-5, Sai Residency, Rameshwar Nagari, Honaji Nagar, Jatwada Road, Near Mahadeo Temple, Harsul, Aurangabad – 431 001. (Brother-in-law of respondent No.2)

¶5

Manjusha Aniruddha Ambekar, Age : 37 Years, Occu : Service, R/o. Plot No. D-5, Sai Residency, Rameshwar Nagari, Honaji Nagar, Jatwada Road, Near Mahadeo Temple, Harsul, Aurangabad – 431 001. (Wife of applicant No.1 and sister-in-law of respondent No.2)

¶6

Rushikesh Sunil Ambekar, Age : 34 Years, Occu : Service, R/o. Adani Galli, Pshor, Taluka Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad (Brother-in-law of respondent No.2)

¶7

...APPLICANTS

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station Officer, Police Station Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶10

Shraddha Pradyumna Ambekar, Age : 34 Years, Occu : Medical Profession, R/o. Nath Colony, Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶11

Adwait Pradyumna Ambekar Age : 5 Years, Occu : Education, (Being minor under the guardianship of Respondent No.2 Shraddha Pradyumna Ambekar in the capacity of mother)

¶12

Page1 of 4

¶13

Shrikant Malani

¶14

8.APPLN.2922.2025.odt

¶15

R/o. Plot No. D-5, Sai Residency, Rameshwar Nagari, Honaji Nagar, Jatwada Road, Near Mahadeo Temple, Harsul, Aurangabad – 431 001. (Son of respondent No.2)

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

¶18

Mr. Deshmukh Mohit R., Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. D. B. Bhange, APP for Respondent – State. Ms. Karishma Sarin, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ***

¶19

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : DECEMBER 22, 2025

¶20

JUDGMENT :

¶21

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage.

¶22

The applicants/original respondent Nos.4 to 6 have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking to quash the proceeding bearing PWDVA Application No.74 of 2021 pending against them before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, for the reliefs claimed under Sections 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 23 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ( for short “DV Act” ).

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel for both parties and upon perusal of the proceedings and the record, at the outset, it appears that the allegations against the applicants are vague and omnibus, and no specific averments have been made against them in the application, nor has any particular role been attributed to them in the present proceedings. Even if

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

Shrikant Malani

¶26

8.APPLN.2922.2025.odt

¶27

the averments made in the application are taken at face value, they do not disclose any specific instance of domestic violence allegedly committed by the applicants against respondent No.2. Mere general and omnibus allegations that the applicants were also involved in causing domestic violence are insufficient to force them to undergo trial. In the absence of any specific role attributed to the applicants so as to attract the ingredients of Sections 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it would be unjust and unfair to compel them to undergo the tribulations of a trial.

¶28

Apart from that, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 does not dispute that the applicants are residing separately from respondent No.2 and her husband. This fact, by itself, is sufficient to indicate that the applicants never lived in a shared household with respondent No. 2, thereby attracting the ingredients of Section 12 of the DV Act against them.

¶29

In view of the above, in my view, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings filed against the applicants as it does not prima facie reveal that the applicants have caused any domestic violence against respondent No.2 to attract the provisions of the DV Act against them.

¶30

As a result, the application is allowed. The proceeding bearing PWDVA Application No. 74 of 2021, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paithan, for the relief claimed under Sections 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

¶31

Page3 of 4

¶32

Shrikant Malani

¶33

8.APPLN.2922.2025.odt

¶34

Act, 2005, to the extent of the applicants, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶35