Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering a petition seeking to quash proceedings initiated under the PWDV Act.

The petition was filed by respondents 4 and 5 in a miscellaneous case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode. The original application had been filed by the woman seeking various reliefs under the PWDV Act. Her husband was arrayed as the first respondent, his parents as respondents 2 and 3, and his brother and sister as respondents 4 and 5.

The petitioners argued that they had never lived with the woman in a shared household and, therefore, had never been in a domestic relationship with her. They also contended that the allegations against them were general and omnibus in nature and that there were no specific allegations of domestic violence attributable to them.

The respondent contended that there were specific allegations against the petitioners and that whether they had committed acts of domestic violence was a matter to be determined after a full-fledged trial. It was also argued that proceedings under Section 12 of the PWDV Act were predominantly civil in nature and could not ordinarily be quashed by invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction.

The Court noted that Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, confers inherent jurisdiction on the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of law and secure the ends of justice.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court's 2025 judgment in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal [2025 KHC Online 6517], which held that the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings arising from an application under Section 12(1) of the PWDV Act.

The Court then examined the statutory definition of "domestic relationship" under Section 2(f) of the PWDV Act, which covers persons who live or have lived together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as family members living together as a joint family.

The Court emphasised that the provision does not require the parties to be living together at the time proceedings are initiated. A domestic relationship can arise if they had lived together in a shared household at any point in the past.

At the same time, there must be some factual foundation showing that such shared living had occurred.

"In order to bring a person within the ambit of a 'domestic relationship', it must be established that the parties live, or have at any point in time lived, together in a shared household," the Court observed.

Relying on Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja [ 202 (5) KHC 496], where it was held that the expression relating to living in a domestic relationship should be given its normal and purposeful meaning, the Court noted that mere fleeting or casual living at different places would not constitute a shared household.

The Court thus observed that in the present case the Section 12 application did not contain any averment that respondents 4 and 5, who are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law, had ever lived with the aggrieved women.

The Court acknowledged that proceedings under the PWDV Act should not be subjected to the strict pleading standards applicable to civil suits. Nevertheless, an application under the Act must disclose, at least in substance, the foundational facts constituting a domestic relationship.

“If an application is completely silent as to when the sister-in-law and her husband resided with the aggrieved person, whether they were members of a common household, or whether they had ever shared a household with the aggrieved person, and merely arrays them as respondents on the basis of omnibus allegations, such persons cannot be brought within the statutory definition of “respondent” in the absence of any material indicating the existence of a domestic relationship.” Court noted.

The Court further added that there must be some factual foundation, either in the pleadings or in the materials accompanying the application, indicating that the parties had lived together in a shared household at some point of time.

“The absence of a detailed or technically worded pleading may not, by itself, be fatal; however, the complete absence of any factual foundation regarding the existence of a domestic relationship cannot be overlooked.” the Court added.

The Court thus concluded that the materials on record did not disclose the relationship between the woman and respondents 4 and 5 in the Miscellaneous Case pending before the trial Court, hence the continuing of the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous case was allowed, quashing the proceedings against the brother-in-law and sister-in-law in a miscellaneous case before the trial court.

Case Title: A and Anr. v S

Case No: Crl. MC 7248/ 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 527

Counsel for Petitioner: Mitha Sudhindran, Riji Rajendran, R.S. Diwaagar, Bharadwajaramasubramaniam R, Soorya M, Nasrin Wahab, Devika Santhosh Kumar

Counsel for Respondent: P. Jeril Babu, Srinath Girish, P.N. Harish Babu