Petitioner challenged deletion of respondents from DV Act petition arguing they had not lived together to form a domestic relationship. Single judge dismissed the revision petition as lacking merit.
Revision petition dismissed in limine; Trial Court record to be sent back with copy of order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**
DECIDED ON : DECEMBER 03, 2015
SWATI MISHRA
..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Advocate.
versus
LEENA GUPTA & ANR
..... Respondents Through : None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
(1) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 01.07.2015 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mahila Court) whereby names of respondents were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.
(2) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the Trial Court record. Admittedly, the petitioner was married to Dr.Anurag Gupta. She has filed petition under Section 12 of DV Act
against him and her father-in-law (Sita Ram Prasad Gupta). Respondent
No.1 is her elder sister-in-law and was married to respondent No.2.
Crl.Rev.P.553/2015 Page 1 of 2
Admittedly, prior to petitioner’s marriage with Dr.Anurag Gupta, they were living separate at their matrimonial home in Kolkota. After the marriage, the petitioner along with her husband lived in U.K. It is stated that there is ancestral house of her husband at Patna and the respondents did not allow her to enter the ancestral house. On perusal of the petition, it reveals that the respondents never lived with the petitioner in U.K. or at
Patna and never had ‘shared household’ to constitute domestic relationship. The petitioner has alleged in the complaint that the respondents used to remain in touch on telephone with her and intervene in the family matters while she was in U.K. Simply, because the respondents are related to the petitioner’s husband, they cannot be dragged into matrimonial dispute between them in DV Act. The Trial Court order is based upon fair appraisal of the legal aspects and needs no intervention.
(3) The revision petition lacks merits and is dismissed in limini. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith along with the copy of the order.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE
DECEMBER 03, 2015/ sa
Crl.Rev.P.553/2015 Page 2 of 2
3 issues framed by the court
Whether sisters-in-law who never cohabitated constitute a 'domestic relationship' under the Domestic Violence Act.
Whether the trial court correctly excluded respondents from being parties in a domestic violence petition.
Whether the revision petition challenging the deletion of respondents from the suit needs to be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Swati Mishra
Leena Gupta
Anur Gupta
S.P. Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
