Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Reserved on: 09 December, 2025
th
Pronounced on: 10 March, 2026
+ CRL.M.C. 297/2021, CRL.M.A. 1531/2021 & CRL.M.A.
6072/2021
1. SH. SANDEEP PATHAK
2. SH. JAYANT PATHAK
3. MS. HEMLATA PATHAK
All R/o BD Complex, Pathak Bhawan,
Ranikhet, District- Almora,
Uttarakhand - 263645.
.....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Mr.
Chinmaya K. Bhatt and Ms. Amrita
Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
LALITA TIWARI
R/o House No. 41, Block - 1,
st
Pocket- 5, 1 Floor, Sector-16,
Rohini, Delhi- 110085. .....Respondent
Through: Respondent in person.
CRL.M.C. 485/2021
1. SH. SANDEEP PATHAK
2. SH. CHANDRA SHEKHAR PATHAK
4. SH. JAYANT PATHAK
4. MS. HEMLATA
All R/o BD Complex, Pathak Bhawan,
Ranikhet, District- Almora,
Uttarakhand - 263645.
.....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Jyoti Dutt Sharma, Mr.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 1 of 20
Chinmaya K. Bhatt and Ms. Amrita
Pandey, Advocates.
Versus
1. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Through Ld. Standing Counsel (Criminal)
Delhi High Court
Sher Shah Marg,
New Delhi - 110003.
Email address dhcprosecutiondelhipolice@qmail.com
Contact No. 9891919168
2. SHO, P.S. KAILASH NATH KATJU MARG
Dr. K.N. Katju Marg, Sector 16,
Rohini, Delhi - 110085.
3. LALITA TIWARI
R/o House No. 41, Block - 1,
st
Pocket- 5, 1 Floor, Sector-16,
Rohini, Delhi- 110085.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the
State.
Ms. Lalita Tiwari in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The aforesaid two Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C”) read with
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 have been filed on behalf of
the Petitioners seeking quashing of the Complaint Case under Section 12 of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as “DV Act”) and FIR No. 252/2013 dated 25.06.2013 , P.S. KN
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 2 of 20
Katju Marg under Section 498A/406/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and the proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief background is that the Petitioner No.1, Sandeep Pathak and
the Respondent/Complainant, Lalita Tiwari got married on 25.01.2005 at
Haldwani, District Nainital, Uttarakhand, as per Hindu rites and customs.
Even though it was mutually agreed that after marriage, the couple would
reside at the Petitioner No.1’s house in Ranikhet, District Almora,
Uttarakhand , but the Complainant, soon found it difficult to adjust in the
small place like Ranikhet, being a girl brought up in Delhi. During her stay
of barely 6 days, from 25.01.2005 to 30.01.2005, her behaviour was
strange. Despite sincere efforts by the Petitioners to make her comfortable,
she remained adamant and refused to discuss the matter with family
members. Consequently, the Petitioner No. 1 escorted the Respondent to her
parental home, in Delhi.
3. The Respondent/Complainant came intermittently to Ranikhet, in
second week of June, 2005 for one week, but again stated that she did not
wish to live in a village with those villagers and insisted on returning to
Delhi and asked the Petitioner No. 1 to live there. He expressed his inability
to relocate and requested her to stay.
4. On 20.06.2005, the Petitioner No.1 accompanied her to Delhi and
requested her parents to intervene. They declined, stating that she had
always behaved similarly. That night, the Respondent allegedly threatened
to commit suicide and falsely implicate the Petitioner, if he complained
about her conduct to her parents. Distressed by this conduct, the Petitioner
No. 1 returned alone to Ranikhet, hoping time would improve the situation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 3 of 20
5. In February 2006, she visited Ranikhet again, but her conduct
remained hostile. In December 2006, the Petitioner No. 1 visited the
Respondent in her house in Rohini, Delhi seeking reconciliation, but she
allegedly abused and ill-treated him.
6. The Respondent continuously pressurized the Petitioner No. 1 to
relocate permanently to Delhi and allegedly misbehaved with his family
members, to compel him to shift. Due to his family responsibilities and
career obligations, he was unable to shift. On 18.06.2007, the Respondent
came to Ranikhet demanding that he must immediately shift to Delhi. Upon
refusal, she allegedly threatened to implicate him and his family in false
cases, so that they would languish in jail.
7. The Respondent last visited Ranikhet in October, 2007. There was no
cohabitation, thereafter. She deserted the Petitioner No. 1 and warned him
against visiting Delhi. The Petitioners repeatedly made umpteen requests for
reconciliation through meetings and discussions, but without success.
8. After nearly four years of desertion since 2007, the Petitioner No.
1/Husband filed a Divorce Petition No. 54/2011 under Section 13(1)(i-a) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “HMA”) on
30.07.2011 before the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Almora, Uttarakhand. Despite
service of Notice, the Respondent did not appear, and she was proceeded ex
parte, on 20.04.2012. The Court granted exparte divorce on 05.09.2012.
9. Thereafter, the Respondent filed a Divorce Petition bearing HMA
No. 558502/2012 on 12.09.2012, before the Ld. Family Court, Rohini,
concealing the earlier decree. Upon being apprised of the Decree, the
Respondent withdrew the Petition on 04.03.2013.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 4 of 20
10. Immediately thereafter, she filed a Complaint under DV Act before
Ld. MM (Mahila Court), North District, Rohini Court, Delhi and lodged
FIR No. 252/2013 dated 25.06.2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC
against the Petitioners.
11. In CC No. 494/2016 under DV Act, aside from the aforesaid
Petitioners, Smt. Chandrika Pathak (Mother of the Petitioner No. 1) and Sh.
Parkash Pathak (Brother of the Petitioner No.1), were also arrayed as
Respondents. However, Smt. Chandrika Pathak died on 04.12.2016 and Sh.
Parkash Pathak died on 26.06.2019.
12. On 18.08.2017, the Ld. MM passed an ex parte Order awarding Rs.
10,000/- per month as maintenance, without hearing the Petitioner.
13. It is submitted that Ld. Trial Court erroneously observed that the
Divorce Decree was subsequent to the Complaint, whereas the Decree was
passed on 05.09.2012 and the Complaint was filed later. The Petitioner’s
Application to recall the ex parte Order, was dismissed on 04.01.2019. The
Petitioner has paid Rs. 50,000/- towards maintenance, till date.
14. The Petitioners seek quashing of Complaint Case No. 494/2016
under DV Act and FIR No. 252/2013 under Section 498A/406/34 IPC,
on the ground that these proceedings are vexatious, and constitute a gross
abuse of the process of law.
15. The Complaint under DV Act and the allegations in the FIR, are
merely an afterthought and is filed deliberately, intentionally and
maliciously to harass the Petitioners and is bereft of any merits and is
completely based on wrong, incorrect, false facts, pure conjectures and
surmises. It is quite evident that the Respondent was unwilling to cohabit
and misused legal proceedings to harass the Petitioners.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 5 of 20
16. Moreover, the allegations in the FIR and the DV Act Complaint, even
if taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, do not disclose the
commission of any offence nor make out a prima facie case against the
Petitioners.
17. The criminal proceedings have been maliciously instituted with
ulterior motives, solely to harass, blackmail, and extract money from the
Petitioner, and to wreak vengeance due to personal grudge and failure before
the Family Court, Rohini.
18. Furthermore, the marriage between Petitioner No. 1 and Respondent
stood annulled by Decree dated 05.09.2012 passed by the Ld. Senior Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Almora, Uttarakhand, which has not been
challenged till date. The Respondent concealed this fact in her Divorce
Petition under Section 13(1) (i-a) HMA before the Family Court, Rohini as
well as in the FIR, demonstrating mala fide intent behind the Complaint.
19. Furthermore, the Petitioner No. 1 suffered a brain haemorrhage during
2015-16 and underwent medical treatment. He remarried on 12.05.2014 and
has a child born on 20.03.2018. The remarriage occurred 1.5 years after the
divorce decree, which is also not challenged. Moreover, he is already
burdened with financial responsibilities, and the continuation of these
proceedings is oppressive and unjust.
20. Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider that the decree of Annulment
dated 05.09.2012, was passed prior to the registration of the FIR dated
25.06.2013.
21. Hence, prayer is made to quash/ set aside the Complaint Case No.
494/2016 under Section 12 DV Act and FIR No. 252/2013 under Sections
498A/406/34 IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 6 of 20
22. The Respondent/Complainant has contended that FIR No. 252/2013
dated 25.06.2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, is pending adjudication
and pertains to serious and specific allegations of dowry demand, cruelty,
and unlawful retention of stridhan by the Petitioner No.1 and his family
members. The registration of the FIR itself demonstrates that cognizable
allegations were disclosed and matter is presently sub judice before the Ld.
Trial Court.
23. It is further submitted that the subsequent remarriage of the
Petitioner/Husband, is irrelevant to the present proceedings. The rights and
liabilities arising out of acts of cruelty and domestic violence committed
during the subsistence of the marriage, cannot be defeated or diluted merely
because the Petitioner chose to remarry after obtaining an ex parte decree
dated 05.09.2012. Such act of the Petitioner does not extinguish the statutory
remedies available to the Respondent, under criminal law or under the DV
Act.
24. With respect to limitation , it is submitted that under Section 28 DV
Act read with the applicable procedural framework, the proceedings are
governed by a special statutory scheme. The Respondent had resided in a
domestic relationship with the Petitioner after the marriage on 25.01.2005
and cohabited intermittently; the disputes arose within approximately 1.5
years of marriage, followed by continued acts of cruelty and economic
abuse. The cause of action was recurring and continuous. The limitation
does not operate mechanically, so as to defeat the substantive rights.
Therefore, the Application cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation
when the effects of domestic violence persisted and the FIR dated
25.06.2013 was lodged within the statutory period.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 7 of 20
25. Thus, it is submitted that the criminal and DV proceedings are
maintainable in law, and the Petitioners cannot evade liability.
Submissions heard and record perused.
Quashing of FIR under Sections 498A/406 IPC:
Allegations under Section 498A IPC:
26. Before embarking on the facts of the case, it would be fruitful to first
understand the contours of Section 498A IPC, which is reproduced as under:
“Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation.— For the purposes of this section, “cruelty means”—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to
life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view
to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
27. In Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others vs. State of Gujarat ,
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3679, the Apex Court while considering the guilt of
the husband under Section 498A, observed that cruelty simplicitor is not
enough to constitute the offence under Section 498A ; rather it must be
done either with an intention to cause injury or to drive the person to
commit suicide or with an intention to coerce her and her relatives to meet
unlawful demands. Hence, where the Court finds misuse of the Section, the
Courts must be vigilant and quash the proceedings under Section 482
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 8 of 20
Cr.P.C., whenever it is found to be registered for ulterior reasons or out of
revenge or vindictiveness .
28. Now, in the light of aforesaid law, the facts of the present case may be
assessed to ascertain if the quashing of the FIR under Section 498A/406/34
IPC, is merited in the circumstances.
29. The Respondent/Complainant in her Complaint has stated that that all
eight members of Petitioner/husband’s family, tortured, humiliated, taunted,
and used abusive language against her.
30. As per the Complaint, she remained in her matrimonial Home for
about one month. Thereafter, Petitioner/Husband used to visit her in Delhi
occasionally, for 4-5 days at the intervals of 4-5 months. The Complainant
alleges she was not allowed to live in a cordial atmosphere at the
matrimonial house in Ranikhet. The Complainant had described one incident
of June 2009, wherein she asserted that while the Respondent/Complainant
was sleeping at the matrimonial home in Ranikhet, someone allegedly
attempted to press her neck, through the window at night . She raised an
alarm. She alleges the incident was repeated, leading her to feel unsafe, after
which she returned to Delhi.
31. Such allegations are on the face of it, are not only evidently concocted
but are vague with no description of the suspect, but even if believed to be
true, then too, they are not targeted towards any of the petitioners, and
therefore, are not relevant.
32. She further stated that her in-laws namely Petitioner No.2/Sh.
Chandra Shekhar Pathak, Father-in-law and Petitioner No.3/Sh. Jayant
Pathak, Brother-in-law continuously pressurized her and her mother to
transfer her house in Rohini, in the name of Petitioner/Husband or to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 9 of 20
purchase another shop/house in Delhi in his name, for business expansion,
failing which they would arrange his remarriage.
33. She, as per own submissions, remained in the matrimonial home for a
few days and most of the time, was in her paternal home, in Delhi. It is the
husband/Petitioner No.1 who used to invariably visit her in Delhi, clearly
reflecting the adjustment issues. From these allegations against the Husband,
father-in-law and the brother-in-law, it is evident that aside from omnibus
allegations that she was tortured, humiliated, taunted, and abused, there is no
specific incident narrated to explain the nature of alleged torture.
34. Further allegations against Petitioner No.4/Smt. Hemlata is that she
was unmarried and resided in the matrimonial house, and controls
Petitioner/Husband’s finances and influencing him regarding property
matters. It is alleged that Petitioner/Husband transferred income, property
interests, FDR income, LIC benefits, and part of the Ranikhet house in her
favour, and she pressurized him regarding the Complainant’s mother’s
property.
35. There is nothing un-natural for a family member to manage the affairs
of a brother, while he was unmarried. Aside from bald assertions, that she
had control over the finances of the husband, there is nothing to show how it
was impacting her; there is no allegation that she was deprived in any way,
by this alleged act of the Sister-in-law or any other family member.
36. The Complainant’s mother-in-law (who is now deceased) allegedly
taunted the Complainant’s family for not performing the marriage according
to their “status” and for not giving sufficient gifts. The in-laws allegedly
compelled the Respondent/Complainant to keep her mother-in-law at her
mother’s house in Delhi every year, from November to March.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 10 of 20
37. Again, there can be no more vague, omnibus allegations that to
sweepingly claim that she was taunted for not bringing sufficient dowry.
Moreover, even if mother-in-law stayed with the Complainant in winter
months, it leaves to ones imagination, how it tantamount to cruelty or
harassment.
38. She also stated that the in-laws were habitual drinkers . It is alleged
that the father-in-law , Chander Shekhar Pathak was of bad character and
after consuming liquor, created an unsafe atmosphere and the Complainant
feared for her security, whenever she stayed at Ranikhet.
39. It is so simple to make such allegations against the family members;
there is no explanation about any specific incident to explain her absolutely
vague allegations. Moreover, is so oppressive and cruel was the behaviour,
there was no Complaint made by the Complainant to any authority.
40. Prakash Pathak , brother of Petitioner No.1, allegedly demanded
money, threatened the Complainant, and allegedly misbehaved and passed
filthy comments, when she was alone. He pressurized the Complainant to
take responsibility for his 11-year-old son, by keeping him permanently at
her mother’s house, in Delhi.
41. Merely asking the Complainant to assist in caring for a family
member cannot, by itself, constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section
498A IPC.
42. The allegations against the Petitioner/Husband allegedly emotionally
blackmailed her by threatening to commit suicide and forced her for
marriage under pressure. The Complainant stated that he is violent and
aggressive, having assaulted an SDM in Ranikhet. It is further alleged that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 11 of 20
he beat the Complainant several times, threatened to kidnap her, and
demanded transfer of property or purchase of another house, in his name.
43. These allegations, again aside from being omnibus, do not amount to
cruelty and harassment , as envisaged under Section 498A IPC. It cannot
be overlooked that the Complainant had resided with her in-laws only for a
few days after marriage and thereafter, shifted to her mother’s house in
Delhi. According to her, it was Petitioner No.1 who used to visit her in
Delhi.
44. To sum up, is evident that firstly , the Complaint clearly lacks
specificity and lacks any details about the dates/period and are generic,
omnibus and vague. Secondly , the Complainant fails to demonstrate how
the conduct of each accused individually or collectively, contributed to
cruelty. Thirdly , the allegations made in the Complaint, even if accepted in
toto , do not constitute cruelty of the nature as contemplated under Section
498A IPC. There is no allegation of physical violence causing injury, no
medical evidence of mental or physical harm, and no conduct likely to drive
her to suicide. The absence of any allegation regarding dowry demand or
harassment on any account and the presence of only vague references
regarding the alleged acts of cruelty which are in fact, instances of ordinary
wear and tear of marital life, further undermines the Complaint. The
allegations at best reflect ordinary matrimonial discord and lack of
adjustment, but not criminal cruelty .
45. From the entire allegations as discussed above , it emerges that the
essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out from the
Complaint made by Respondent No.2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 12 of 20
46. In light of the above findings, it is concluded that it is clearly a case
which comes in the category of abuse of the process of law, meriting
quashing of the FIR.
Allegations under Section 406 IPC:
47. To comprehend these assertions, it would be relevant to first consider
the contours of Section 406 IPC. Section 405 IPC defines the offence as
under:
“Section 405. Criminal breach of trust.
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property , or with any
dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to
his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that
property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in
which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express
or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or
wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach
of trust”. ”
“Section 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.”
48. Section 406 IPC refer to the two foundational elements to constitute
the offense of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC: first , an
entrustment of property, and second , a dishonest misappropriation of that
property.
49. The Respondent/Complainant in her Complaint makes only one single
assertion regarding her jewellery. It is stated that the Petitioners/in-laws
illegally and forcefully retained her gold jewellery/ stridhan and expelled her
with only the clothes she was wearing, threatening not to accept her unless
property was transferred in Petitioner/Husband’s name.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 13 of 20
50. Evidently, the Complainant uses general terms like “ jewellery”
without providing any description or valuation of the specific items,
allegedly retained. There is no detail regarding what items were given by
whom at the time of marriage, what items constitute stridhan , what is their
nature, description, quantity, quality, etc. The Complaint also reveals
omnibus reference to “in-laws”. Moreover, no specific averments had been
made qua the Petitioners herein.
51. It is pertinent to observe that as per her own averments, she had
stayed in the matrimonial home barely for a month and thereafter, come to
Delhi. There is not a whisper about the person to whom the alleged
jewellery was entrusted and when did she demand back the same and was
not returned.
52. Thus, aside from omnibus allegations, no prima facie case of
entrustment of jewellery has been made out. Thus, no offence under Section
406 IPC is made out in the Complaint against the Petitioners .
53. Recently, the Supreme Court in Sanjay D. Jain & Ors. vs. State of
Maharashtra , Crl. Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12584/2024 decided
on 26.09.2025 (2025 INSC 1168), while quashing FIR under Section
377/498A/506 IPC, reiterated the settled principle that where allegations in
the FIR or complaint are vague and general without specific instances or
particulars essential to constitute an offence, such FIRs do not disclose a
prima facie case and are liable to be quashed. The Court emphasized that
even if the statements in the FIR are taken at their face value, if the essential
ingredients of an offence like cruelty under Section 498A IPC are not made
out with particularity, quashing is justified to prevent abuse of process.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 14 of 20
54. The guiding tests in regard to the quashing of the FIR, had been
succinctly stated in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp
(1) SCC 335 wherein it is observed, “where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused; or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended
with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with
an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view
to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the FIR may be quashed.”
55. As discussion above in detail, there is not an iota of even a prima
facie case of cruelty or of harassment of the Complainant by the Petitioners.
There is also no element of cruelty or entrustment made out from the facts
alleged by the Respondent in her Complaint. Moreover, as discussed above
from the facts, when comprehensively considered, reflects that it is a case of
abuse of process of law, justifying the quashing of the FIR and the
Chargesheet filed therein.
56. Accordingly, FIR No. 252/2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC
dated 25.06.2013 is hereby, quashed .
Quashing of Complaint under Domestic Violence Act:
57. The Petitioners in the present petition, are seeking quashing of the
Complaint Case No.494/2016 filed under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22
DV Act dated 05.03.2013, of the Ld. MM (Mahila Court).
58. The Respondent/Complainant has sought reliefs for Protection,
Residence Order, Monetary Relief as well as Compensation Order in her
Complaint under the DV Act. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the
allegations forming the basis of the Complaint under the DV Act are
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 15 of 20
substantially the same as those forming the subject matter of FIR No.
252/2013 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC .
59. Firstly , similar allegations made in the Complaint are similar to those
made in the FIR. As already examined in detail above, they are vague ,
omnibus and devoid of any specific instances of cruelty, harassment, or
unlawful demand or any act of Domestic violence. Thus, even when
considering the allegations made in the Complaint under the DV Act are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, they do not disclose
any specific act of domestic violence attributable to the Petitioners. The
Complaint is bereft of particulars regarding the time, nature, and manner of
the alleged acts of violence, and merely contains generalized accusations
against several members of the family. Such bald and sweeping allegations,
are insufficient to sustain proceedings under the DV Act.
60. Secondly , the timeline of events further assumes significance. The
marriage between Petitioner No.1 and the Respondent was solemnized on
25.01.2005. The parties admittedly lived together only for a brief period and
thereafter, remained separated. The Petitioner No.1 instituted Divorce
Petition No. 54/2011 under Section 13(1)(i-a) HMA before the Court of the
Ld. Senior Civil Judge, Almora on 30.07.2011 and was granted an ex parte ,
decree of divorce dated 05.09.2012. The said decree has admittedly not been
challenged and has attained finality and evidently the domestic relationship
between the parties came to an end. It is only thereafter, that the Respondent
initiated proceedings by filing the Complaint under the DV Act on
05.03.2013 and Complaint on which FIR was registered on 12.09.2013.
61. Herein, it is pertinent to refer to Section 2(f) DV Act, which defines
“domestic relationship” as a relationship between two persons who live, or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 16 of 20
have at any point of time lived together in a shared household, and are
related by marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage.
62. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to Kuldeep Kaur vs. Swaran
Kaur , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5593, decided on 21.08.2025, wherein a
Division Bench of this Court while examining the right of residence in a
shared household under DV Act, and the effect of dissolution of marriage on
such right, held as under:
“ 27. Nonetheless, the statutory protections under
Section 17 of the PWDV Act are firmly anchored in the
existence of a “domestic relationship.” Section 2(f) of the
PWDV Act defines a domestic relationship as 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 a relationship in the nature
of marriage. Once the marriage stands dissolved by a valid
decree of divorce, the domestic relationship comes to an
end. Consequently, the substratum upon which the right of
residence is founded no longer survives, unless a contrary
statutory right is shown to persist.
28. …. . In the absence of such a relationship, the
foundational requirement for invoking Section 17 of the
PWDV Act is lacking. Accordingly, the Appellant's
assertion of a continuing right of residence under the Act is
materially weakened, subject of course to the outcome of
her pending appeal.”
63. Furthermore, in the similar facts, in the case of Amit Agarwal and Ors.
vs. Sanjay Aggarwal and Ors. , Crl. Misc. No.M-36736 of 2014 (O&M), the
Punjab & Haryana High Court while quashing a Complaint filed under the
DV Act, held that “ where the domestic relationship ceases, the provisions
under the D.V. Act cannot be invoked. Furthermore, once the Divorce is
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 17 of 20
granted, The complainant had impleaded relatives who were not living in
the shared house and permitting the Magistrate to proceed with the
complaint would be an abuse of the process of law. The complaint and the
proceedings therein are quashed. ”
64. The principles laid down in the aforesaid cases squarely apply to the
facts of the present case. Admittedly, the marriage between Petitioner No.1
and the Respondent stands dissolved by a decree of divorce dated
05.09.2012, which has attained finality. Moreover, the couple resided
together only for a brief period of time. Once the domestic relationship
between the parties ceased to exist, the foundational requirement for
invoking the provisions of the DV Act does not exist.
65. Another aspect of immense significance is that the Parties got married
on 25.01.2005 and essentially, the Complainant, barely after a month, came
to Delhi are resided majorly in her parental home, in Delhi. It was the
petitioner No.1/Husband who used to visit her, in Delhi. Eventually, when
things did not work out, he filed Divorce Petition No. 54/2011 on
30.07.2011, and was granted ex parte decree of divorce on 05.09.2012. The
Complainant failed to contest the proceedings and eventually the Divorce
was granted on 05.09.2012, which was never challenged by the
Complainant. Infact, she herself subsequently filed for Divorce on
12.09.2012 in Ld. Family Court, Delhi but withdrew it on 04.03.2013 when
she came to know about the ex parte Divorce Decree.
66. It was only subsequent thereto, that the Respondent initiated
proceedings by filing the Complaint under the DV Act on 05.03.2013 and
the FIR dated 25.06.2013 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 18 of 20
67. Similar situation was considered in the case of Bhushan and Ors. vs.
Sau. Nilesha Bhushan Deshmukh, Crl. Appl. 164/2017 decided on
09.08.2021 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench).
While quashing the DV Act Complaint filed by the Respondent/Wife, it was
noted that the Respondent had initiated DV Act proceedings during the
course of the matrimonial discord between the parties. It was after the
Respondent suffered adverse orders in the proceedings concerning the
Divorce petition and the Application for restitution of conjugal rights, which
stood confirmed right upto the Apex Court, that she turned around and
sought to invoke the provisions of the DV Act . This demonstrated that the
manner in which the proceedings were sought to be initiated under the
provisions of the DV Act was nothing, but an abuse of process of law.
68. The Bombay High Court therefore, quashed the DV proceedings
holding that such proceedings were initiated only after the complainant had
suffered adverse orders in earlier litigation and were intended to harass the
Applicants.
69. Thus, the chronology of events clearly indicates that the criminal and
DV proceedings were initiated after the marital relationship had already been
dissolved by a decree of divorce, and is a subsequent attempt to revive
matrimonial disputes through criminal proceedings, which is clearly an
abuse of the process of law and an afterthought .
70. In view of the above discussion, the Complaint under the DV Act is
based on the same vague and omnibus allegations which have already been
examined in the context of the FIR. Further, the Complaint has been
instituted after the decree of divorce dated 05.09.2012, which has attained
finality, thereby bringing the domestic relationship between the parties to an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 19 of 20
end. In the absence of any specific allegations of domestic violence and a
subsisting domestic relationship, continuation of the present proceedings
would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
71. Accordingly, the Complaint Case No. 494/2016 under Sections 18,
19, 20, 21 and 22 DV Act and all proceedings arising therefrom are hereby,
quashed .
Relief:
72. The two Petitions i.e. CRL. M.C. No. 297/2021, seeking quashing of
Complaint case No. 494/2016 under DV Act and CRL. M.C. No. 485/2021,
seeking quashing of FIR No. 252/2013 dated 25.06.2013 filed under
Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, P.S. KN Katju Marg, are hereby, allowed and
the Complaint as well as the FIR, along with proceedings therein, are
quashed .
73. The pending Application(s), if any, are disposed of accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2026/ R
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIKAS
ARORA
Signing Date:13.03.2026
13:17:38
CRL.M.C. 297 & 485/2021 Page 20 of 20