DV Act | Visits Of Sundry Family Members To Matrimonial Home Without Permanency Would Not Render Them As Members Of Shared Household: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that the visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency or the intention to treat the premises as shared household, would not render them as members of the "shared household" under Domestic Violence Act.

Justice Prateek Jalan observed thus:

"Just as the woman living fleetingly or casually at different places, would not convert those places into a "shared household", the visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency or the intention to treat the premises as shared household, would not render them as members of the "shared household"."

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by a wife challenging an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court to the extent that summons in her complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 were not issued to the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

The petitioner also challenged the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the aforesaid order of the MM was affirmed in appeal.

The respondent No. 1 was the petitioner's husband and the respondent No. 2 was her mother-in-law. The respondent No. 3 was the petitioner's sister-in-law and the respondent No. 4 was the husband of the respondent No.3.

The petitioner had filed an application under sec. 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act in March, 2021. All the four respondents were arrayed as accused. By an order dated 19.03.2021, notice was issued to the husband and the matter was adjourned for consideration on the point of issuance of summons to other respondents.

By the order dated 27.09.2021, the MM had issued summons to the respondent No. 2 also, but came to the conclusion that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 had not been residing in the shared household and no summons were therefore issued to them.

The petitioner had then challenged the order by way of an appeal under sec. 29 of the DV Act. The Appellate Court, vide the impugned order affirmed the view taken by the MM.

The Court was of the view that that the orders of the MM and the Appellate Court did not call for interference under sec. 482 of the CrPC.

"The plenary scope of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is to prevent abuse of the process of Court and to secure the ends of justice. Such inherent power is however to be exercised sparingly and not upon a re- appreciation of materials which have already been considered by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. Reference in this context may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court inter alia in State of A.P. vs. Golconda Linga Swamy and Another3 and Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and Another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another," the Court said.

At the outset, the Court that the sister-in-law of the petitioner and her husband visited often for various lengths of time, but there was no suggestion that they were, or intended to be, permanently resident in the said household.

"While the above observations of the Court are in the context of the place of residence of the "aggrieved person", it would equally apply to the identification of those who may be properly impleaded as respondents on the basis of residence in the shared household," it added.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: BHARTI ANAND v. SUSHANT ANAND AND ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 382

Click Here To Read Order