“11. Now advertising back to the facts of the present case. The perusal of trial court record would show that respondent herein has admitted in letter dated 28.10.2010 written by her to Bank Manager of Central Bank of Indi, Ghaziabad that she along with her husband Himanshu Sharma had been residing in House No.651, Baghban Apartments, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi since April-May 2008. She has also admitted this fact in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.2013 titled as “Ms. Aarti Kaushik vs. Himanshu Sharma” filed by her before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thus, it is an admitted position on record that respondent herein was residing separately from appellants since April-May 2008. She had filed the complaint case u/s PWDV Act against them in the month of September, 2013 i.e. after considerable gap of more than 5 & ½ years or so. In this backdrop, the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the appellants can still be said to be in ‘domestic relationship’ with the respondent herein or not. The answer, in the opinion of this Court, has to be in negative. The reason is quite obvious that the respondent ceased to be in domestic relationship with the appellants since the day when she alongwith her husband had shifted to some other house situated in Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi in April-May 2008 and had started residing there permanently. It is not the situation where the respondent had shifted to said other house for quite some period or temporarily or with the understanding that she would return back to matrimonial house and would start residing with the appellants in their house situated at Shalimar Garden ExtensionII, Sahibabad. While taking this view, I am also fortified by the judgment of our own High Court in the matter titled as Vijay Verma vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr. reported at 2010 (4) JCC 2377 , wherein it has been held as under:
