DV Act proceedings are not maintainable against relatives who never shared a household with the aggrieved woman.

Opposite Party No. 2, Kumari Arunima, initiated Domestic Violence Case No. 650 of 2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, alleging harassment, atrocities and misappropriation of her stridhan by the petitioners and other relatives of her deceased husband.

Petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 5 were the complainant’s sisters-in-law, while Petitioner Nos. 2, 4 and 6 were her brothers-in-law. The petitioners contended that they had married before the complainant’s marriage, maintained separate residences and households, and had never lived with the complainant in a shared household.

The complainant’s husband died on 27 April 2020; an FIR under Section 498-A IPC was lodged four days thereafter, followed by the domestic-violence proceedings on 20 September 2020. The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

Whether proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are maintainable against relatives of the husband who allegedly never lived with the aggrieved woman in a shared household or domestic relationship?

Whether the allegations and materials on record justified exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS?

The Court applied Sections 2(a), 2(f) and 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, under which an aggrieved person must have been in a “domestic relationship” with the respondent, involving living or having lived together in a “shared household”.

Relying on Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, (2021) 1 SCC 414, the Court held that shared-household living must possess some permanency and cannot be based on fleeting or casual residence; however, the shared household may belong to a relative of the husband if the aggrieved woman lived there in a domestic relationship.

Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, AIR 2022 SC 2331, and Hemant Gagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Cr. Misc. No. 14545 of 2015, were relied upon for the principle that the aggrieved woman must have lived with the concerned respondent in a shared household.

The Court also applied State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, particularly categories 1, 3 and 7, permitting quashing where the allegations do not disclose an offence or where proceedings are manifestly malicious.

It further relied on Saurav Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158, for the proposition that the High Court may exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings arising from an application under Section 12 of the DV Act.

The Court examined the statutory definitions of “domestic relationship” and “shared household” and held that their existence was a prerequisite to maintaining proceedings under the DV Act.

Although the statute receives a broad and purposive interpretation, the materials showed that all petitioners had been married and residing separately well before the complainant’s marriage; their names and addresses in the complaint also reflected separate residences.

The Court found no material establishing that the petitioners had ever lived with the complainant in a joint family or shared household. Consequently, the allegations of harassment and stridhan-related conduct, without the foundational domestic relationship required by the Act, could not sustain proceedings against these petitioners.

The Court also considered the earlier quashing of the Section 498-A proceedings against them and concluded that their implication, despite separate residence and absence of specific foundational facts, attracted the principles in Bhajan Lal.

Exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS, the Court quashed the entire proceedings in Domestic Violence Case No. 650 of 2020 insofar as they related to the six petitioners and allowed the application.