Sushma Pandey vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87691 of 2024
======================================================
1. Sushma Pandey Wife of Sri Ravi Narayan Pandey Resident of Quarter No.
G-07, Block - E, Agrani Home Apartment, Mean Phase, I.O.B. Nagar, Ward
No. 05, Sarari, Khagaul, Patna - 801105
2. Ravi Narayan Pandey Son of Janardhan Pandey Resident of Quarter No. G-
07, Block - E, Agrani Home Apartment, Mean Phase, I.O.B. Nagar, Ward
No. 05, Sarari, Khagaul, Patna - 801105
3. Archana Mishra Wife of Dhananjay Kumar C/o- Ranjit Singh, New
Purandarpur, Near old Jakkanpur Police Station, Patna, Phulwari, Patna-
800001
4. Dhananjay Kumar Son of Nagendra Nath Mishra C/o- Ranjit Singh, New
Purandarpur, Near old Jakkanpur Police Station, Patna, Phulwari, Patna-
800001
5. Rekha Mishra Wife of Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Resident of V. D. Mishra
Road, Kalisthan, PS Chowk, Patna City, Patna- 800008
6. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Son of Lakshman Ji Mishra Resident of V. D. Mishra
Road, Kalisthan, PS Chowk, Patna City, Patna- 800008
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Kumari Arunima Wife of Surendra Chandra Pathak, D/O- Surendra Chandra
Pathak R./O-Mohalla Puraniganj (Jamalpur Road), P.S. Kasim Bazar, P.O.
and District Munger, Presently Residing at Road No 8, Ashok Nagar, Ram
Lakhan Path, Opp Doorbash Lane PO Lohia Nagar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Aditi Hansaria, Advocate
Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP
For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Harish Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-09-2026
Heard Ms. Aditi Hansaria, learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2.
2. The present application has been filed for
quashing the entire proceedings initiated by O.P. No. 2 through

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
2/16
the complaint petition filed before the Learned C.J.M., Munger
registered as Domestic Violence Case No. 650 of 2020 under the
provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as the DV Act).
3. The short facts of the case originating out of the
complaint case is that the petitioners along with co-accused
persons are alleged to have harassed and caused various
atrocities to the complainant. Further, it has been alleged that the
co-accused persons in connivance with the petitioners have
grabbed the stridhan of the complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
submitted, at the outset that petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 5 are the
sisters-in-law ( nanad ) of the O.P. No. 2 whereas petitioner nos.
2, 4 and 6 are her brothers-in-law ( nandoi ). It is further
submitted that these petitioners were staying separately from the
household of the O.P. No. 2 and as such, the present proceedings
under the Domestic Violence Act are not maintainable as against
them. A copy of the objection petition dated 05.07.2022 has also
been brought on record by way of Annexure P/3.
5. It has been specifically stated that the marriage
of petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 5 to petitioner nos. 2, 4 and 6 had
taken place on 18.02.1999, 28.04.2003 and 06.03.1991

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
3/16
respectively. Thus, the emphatic contention is that well before
the filing of the present case, these petitioners were already
married, had separate residence and were maintaining separate
households and as such, they were not in any domestic
relationship with the O.P. No. 2, as at no point of time, they
lived in a shared household with her. It is also brought to the
notice of this Court that the petitioner no. 2 is posted in the
Railway Department, petitioner no. 4 is posted in the Postal
Department and petitioner no. 6 is a practicing advocate and all
these petitioners along with their wives, who are also petitioners
herein, are maintaining their separate household and have no
reason or occasion to share the household of the O.P. No. 2.
6. Learned counsel has also pointed out that the
present complaint case has been filed after almost 13 years of
the marriage. As a matter of fact, a case under Section 498(A) of
the IPC was lodged merely 4 days after the death of her husband
on 27.04.2020, against the relatives of the husband including the
petitioners and on 20.09.2020, the present case under the DV
Act was also filed. The father of the O.P. No. 2, being a lawyer
in Munger, is also pointed out as a circumstance to be
considered, leading to false implication by use of legal brain. It
has further been submitted that till her husband was alive, there

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
4/16
had been no complaint with regard to demand of dowry or any
ill-treatment whatsoever and it is only after his death that both
the cases under Section 498(A) and the present case under the
DV Act were filed with oblique motives.
7. Further, in order to substantiate the argument that
‘domestic relationship’ in a ‘shared household’ is a sine qua non
of the proceedings under the D.V. Act, reliance has been placed
on the following cases: (i) Satish Chander Ahuja Vs. Sneha
Ahuja reported in (2021) 1 SCC 414 , (ii) Prabha Tyagi Vs.
Kamlesh Devi reported in AIR 2022 SC 2331 , (iii) Hemant
Gagan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. in Cr.
Misc. No. 14545 of 2015 and (iv) Dhananjay Mohan
Zombade vs. Prachi reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Bombay
1607.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the O.P.
No. 2 has however, opposed the present application on the
ground that these petitioners are the near relatives of the
husband of the O.P. No. 2 and they were also instrumental in
subjecting the O.P. No. 2 to cruelty and torture and as such, their
impleadment in the present case as accused, is not wrong.
9. I have heard the rival contentions made on behalf
of the petitioners and the O.P. No. 2 and have also gone through

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
5/16
the materials that have been placed on record. In order to
appreciate the arguments and reach a just conclusion as to
whether the case of the petitioners falls within the definitions of
‘shared household’ and ‘domestic relationship’, it would be
imperative to first understand the legal framework of the
provisions of the DV Act. The relevant provisions containing
the definitions as provided under the DV Act are being
reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“2……
( a ) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or
has been, in a domestic relationship with the
respondent and who alleges to have been subjected
to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
…….
( f ) “domestic relationship” means a relationship
between two persons who live or have, at any point
of time, lived together in a shared household, when
they are related by consanguinity, marriage or
through a relationship in the nature of marriage,
adoption or are family members living together as a
joint family;
……..
( s ) “shared household” means a household where the
person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a
domestic relationship either singly or along with the
respondent and includes such a household whether
owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved
person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by
either of them in respect of which either the
aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
6/16
singly have any right, title, interest or equity and
includes such a household which may belong to the
joint family of which the respondent is a member,
irrespective of whether the respondent or the
aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the
shared household;”
10. Looking at the statutory scheme of the DV Act,
it is seemingly apparent that a domestic relationship between the
aggrieved person and the respondent, is a sine qua non to
maintain any proceedings under the DV Act. For establishing
the domestic relationship, it must come to fore that the parties
were either living or at any point of time, had lived together in a
shared household and they are related to the aggrieved person
through consanguinity, marriage or otherwise and have been
living together as a joint family.
11. It has been succinctly laid down in the case of
Satish Chander Ahuja ( supra ) that the words “lives or at any
stage has lived in a domestic relationship” have to be given its
normal and purposeful meaning and such living has to refer to a
living which has some permanency. It has also been held that
mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a
shared household. Para 68 is being quoted herein :-
“ 68. The words “lives or at any
stage has lived in a domestic relationship” have
to be given its normal and purposeful meaning.
The living of woman in a household has to refer to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
7/16
a living which has some permanency. Mere
fleeting or casual living at different places shall
not make a shared household. The intention of the
parties and the nature of living including the
nature of household have to be looked into to find
out as to whether the parties intended to treat the
premises as shared household or not. As noted
above, the 2005 Act was enacted to give a higher
right in favour of women. The 2005 Act has been
enacted to provide for more effective protection of
the rights of the women who are victims of
violence of any kind occurring within the family.
The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to
effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act.
Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the
2005 Act grants an entitlement in favour of the
woman of the right of residence under the shared
household irrespective of her having any legal
interest in the same or not.”
12. The above mentioned case of Satish Chander
Ahuja ( supra ) has been taken note of and has been relied upon,
especially paragraph 68 of the said case, in the case of Prabha
Tyagi ( supra ) and paragraph 29 and 30 thereof are being quoted
as hereunder:-
“ 29. We could also allude to the exposition of this
Court in Ajay Kumar v. Lata [Ajay Kumar v. Lata,
(2019) 15 SCC 352 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 367 :
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 282] , wherein the husband of
the respondent therein had died, and maintenance
was claimed from the brother of the deceased
husband. The Court held that at a prima facie stage,
a case for grant of maintenance was made out since

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
8/16
the respondent and her deceased husband resided in
the same house and the appellant therein (brother of
deceased person) also resided in the same
household.
30. Further in Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja
[Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1
SCC 414 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 325 : (2021) 1 SCC
(Cri) 667] , a three-Judge Bench of this Court,
wherein one of us (Shah, J.) was a member,
considered the expressions “lives or have at any
point of time lived” appearing in Section 2(s) of the
DV Act. This Court while considering the
correctness of the law laid down in S.R. Batra v.
Taruna Batra [S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3
SCC 169 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 56] , concluded that
the said case had not correctly interpreted Section
2(s) of the DV Act and that the said judgment does
not lay down a correct law and observed as under :
(Sneha Ahuja case [Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha
Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414 : (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 325 :
(2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 667] , SCC pp. 452-53, paras
66-69)
“66. … The expression ‘at any stage has
lived’ occurs in Section 2(s) after the words
‘where the person aggrieved lives’. The use
of the expression ‘at any stage has lived’
immediately after words ‘person aggrieved
lives’ has been used for object different to
what has been apprehended by this Court in
para 26. The expression ‘at any stage has
lived’ has been used to protect the women
from denying the benefit of right to live in a
shared household on the ground that on the
date when application is filed, she was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
9/16
excluded from possession of the house or
temporarily absent. The use of the
expression ‘at any stage has lived’ is for the
above purpose and not with the object that
wherever the aggrieved person has lived
with the relatives of husband, all such houses
shall become shared household, which is not
the legislative intent. The shared household
is contemplated to be the household, which
is a dwelling place of aggrieved person in
present time.
67. … The entire scheme of the Act is to
provide immediate relief to the aggrieved
person with respect to the shared household
where the aggrieved person lives or has
lived. As observed above, the use of the
expression ‘at any stage has lived’ was only
with intent of not denying the protection to
aggrieved person merely on the ground that
aggrieved person is not living as on the date
of the application or as on the date when
Magistrate concerned passes an order under
Section 19. The apprehension expressed by
this Court in para 26 in S.R. Batra v. Taruna
Batra [S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3
SCC 169 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 56] , thus,
was not true apprehension and it is correct
that in event such interpretation is accepted,
it will lead to chaos and that was never the
legislative intent. We, thus, are of the
considered opinion that shared household
referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared
household of aggrieved person where she
was living at the time when application was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
10/16
filed or in the recent past had been excluded
from the use or she is temporarily absent.
68. The words ‘lives or at any stage has lived
in a domestic relationship’ have to be given
its normal and purposeful meaning. The
living of woman in a household has to refer
to a living which has some permanency.
Mere fleeting or casual living at different
places shall not make a shared household.
The intention of the parties and the nature of
living including the nature of household have
to be looked into to find out as to whether
the parties intended to treat the premises as
shared household or not. As noted above, the
2005 Act was enacted to give a higher right
in favour of woman. The 2005 Act has been
enacted to provide for more effective
protection of the rights of the woman who
are victims of violence of any kind occurring
within the family. The Act has to be
interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very
purpose and object of the Act. Section 2(s)
read with Sections 17 and 19 of the 2005 Act
grants an entitlement in favour of the woman
of the right of residence under the shared
household irrespective of her having any
legal interest in the same or not.
69. … The definition of “shared household”
as noticed in Section 2(s) does not indicate
that a shared household shall be one which
belongs to or taken on rent by the husband.
We have noticed the definition of
“respondent” under the Act. The respondent
in a proceeding under the Domestic Violence

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
11/16
Act can be any relative of the husband. In the
event, the shared household belongs to any
relative of the husband with whom in a
domestic relationship the woman has lived,
the conditions mentioned in Section 2(s) are
satisfied and the said house will become a
shared household.”
13. Further reference made by the learned counsel
for the petitioners upon a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court made in Hemant Gagan Singh and Ors. Vs. State
of Bihar and Anr. in Cr. Misc. No. 14545 of 2015 has also been
perused to find that the case of Satish Chander Ahuja ( supra )
has been elaborately dealt with in paragraph 22 of the said
judgment. Further it was considered that the exhaustive
definition provided in the DV Act clearly emphasized that the
aggrieved woman must have lived or is living in the shared
household by way of consanguinity, adoption, marriage etc., in a
joint family and only when a domestic relationship arises having
lived in such a shared household, the proceedings under the DV
Act would be maintainable as against the said persons.
Paragraph 23, 25 and 26 of the said case are being quoted
hereunder:-
“ 23. From the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court gave a broad and purposive
interpretation to the meaning of ‘shared household’.
What flows from the afore-quoted decision is that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
12/16
the definition of ‘shared household’ under section
2(s) of the DV Act, 2005 is an exhaustive definition
and the shared household could belong to any
relative of the husband, however, it is amply
emphasized for our present purpose that the
aggrieved woman must have lived or be living in the
shared household with such relative of the husband
against whom the claim has been filed under the
D.V. Act, 2005. Finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
also held that the right of residence, as provided to
the daughter-in-law under section 19 of the Act is
not an indefeasible right and hence the Court has to
balance the rights of the parties. Reading the
provisions of section 2(f) and 2(s) together with the
aforesaid judgment, an aggrieved woman who has
been in a domestic relationship either in the past or
at present with the respondent, according to section
2(q) of the Act, and has been subjected to domestic
violence can seek the reliefs provided under
Chapter- IV of the DV Act, 2005. A domestic
relationship would entail persons living together or
have lived together in a shared household for
instance by way of consanguinity, adoption,
marriage, relationship in the nature of marriage or
family members living together as a joint family.
Therefore, a domestic relationship arises only when
the aggrieved person had lived together with the
respondents in a shared household.
25 . Therefore, existence of a shared household is
necessary, no matter in the past or present, to bring
an action, which in the present case is pertinently
lacking on account of the family partition which had
been effectuated in the year 1982 itself i.e. much
prior to the marriage of opposite party no.2 with the
deceased petitioner no.1.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
13/16
26. In the present case, there was a family partition
among the brothers i.e. the deceased husband and
brother-in-law of opposite party no.2, therefore, the
claim of the opposite party no.2 is not sustainable
against her brother-in-law and his wife since the
opposite party no.2 did not reside as a joint family
in a shared household with them.”
14. Upon going through the decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as also of this Court, it would be clear
that a broad and purposive interpretation has been given to the
meaning of ‘shared household’ and even after the same, if it
cannot be established that the present petitioners were at any
point of time living in a shared household along with the O.P.
No. 2, the proceedings as against them would not be
maintainable. It is clear from the pleadings of this case that all
these petitioners were already married and were staying in
separate household much before the marriage of O.P. No. 2
herself, hence, there is no question of them, being part of her
household and their case cannot be brought under ‘domestic
relationship' being shared with the O.P. No. 2.
15. This Court is also conscious of the fact that
another case under Section 498A was also lodged against the
relatives of the husband including the present petitioners, which
also stood quashed considering the various facts and
circumstances including the circumstance of these petitioners

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
14/16
being already married and not residing along with the O.P. No. 2.
16. Taking note of the various judicial
pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court with regard to
certain generalized allegations made against relatives of the
husband, who are not even staying together in the same
household, being, cases of Kahkashan Kaushar Vs. State of
Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 and Dara Lakshmi
Narayana Vs. The State of Telangana reported in (2025) 3
SCC 735 , the case under Section 498A against these petitioners
stood quashed vide order dated 05.02.2026 passed in Sushma
Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in 2026(2)
BLJ 301.
17. It is clear from the present complaint itself that
these petitioners have been residing separately as in the column
of respondents, their names appear with separate address, which
is not the one, where the O.P. No. 2 was residing. As a matter of
fact, the petitioners have come out with a specific case that they
have never lived as a joint family with the O.P. No. 2 and as
such, they would not come within the definition of domestic
relationship with her.
18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal , reported in (1992) Supp (1)

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
15/16
SCC 335 , has laid down the guidelines in categories 1 and 3
that if the allegations taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety, do not prima facie , constitute any offence or make
out a case against the accused, and where the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against accused, such proceedings
are liable to be quashed.
19. In the present case, the category 7 of the
Bhajan Lal case ( Supra ) would also get attracted, as the present
case seems to be maliciously lodged against the present
petitioners in order to cause harassment to the entire family. The
trend of relatives of husband, who are not even staying together,
being made an accused in cases under Section 498A of the
IPC/85 of the BNS, which has been strongly deprecated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, is now no more confined to the provisions
of the IPC/BNS, alone but it has dangerously also treaded into
the arena of the proceedings under the DV Act and the present
case appears to be a glaring example of the same.
20. Thus, taking the case in its entirety and
considering the fact that these petitioners were never in a
‘shared household’ with the O.P. No. 2 and as such, never shared
a ‘domestic relationship’ with her, the proceedings as against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87691 of 2024 dt.03-09-2026
16/16
them under the DV Act would not be held to be maintainable.
With regard to quashing of proceedings under DV Act by use of
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been dealt with in the decision
rendered in Saurav Kumar Tripathi vs. Vidhi Rawal reported
in 2025 SCC Online SC 1158 , that the High Courts can
exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (528 of the
B.N.S.S.) for quashing proceedings emanating from application
under Section 12(i) of the DV Act, 2005. Further, the case of the
petitioners fall within the ambit of categories (1), (3) and (7) of
the case of the Bhajan Lal ( Supra ), as such, the inherent
powers of this Court are fit to be exercised in favour of the
petitioners.
21. Accordingly, the entire proceedings arising out
of the Domestic Violence Case No. 650 of 2020, so far as it
relates to these petitioners, stands quashed.
22. The present application is thus allowed.

(Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 08.09.2026
Transmission Date 08.09.2026