Marriage alone does not establish a domestic relationship with every relative under the DV Act.

The petitioner instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking, among other reliefs, interim protection of her residence and possession in a claimed shared household.

Respondent nos. 3 and 4 sought deletion from the proceeding.

The Magistrate initially recorded that maintainability involved questions of fact and law to be determined after evidence, but later deleted respondent nos. 1 to 4, rejected interim residence protection, and imposed costs.

The appellate court set aside the costs but affirmed the substantive order.

The petitioner challenged both orders, contending that disputed questions of domestic relationship and residence could not be decided without evidence and that the later order departed from the earlier procedural direction.

The respondents relied, among other matters, on the asserted absence of a domestic relationship and the pendency of civil property litigation.

1. Whether the courts below could determine that the statutory domestic relationship was absent and dismiss the petitioner’s claims against the respondents without an evidentiary hearing.

2. Whether the petitioner’s claimed right of residence under Sections 17 and 19 of the Act could sustain interim protection absent a qualifying domestic relationship with the respondents.

3. Whether the earlier order reserving maintainability for determination after evidence barred the later order under Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, or otherwise warranted revisional interference.

Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act defines a domestic relationship by reference to specified relationships and living together in a shared household at some point; the required nexus must be established between the aggrieved person and the particular respondent from whom relief is sought.

Sections 17 and 19 provide residence rights and remedies within that statutory framework, while Section 12 is the procedural route to reliefs under Sections 17–23 and does not dispense with the substantive requirements of Section 2(f).

Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, (2022) 8 SCC 90, rejects a rigid requirement of actual residence at the time of filing but does not eliminate the need to establish the qualifying relationship.

Bhawna v. Bhay Ram, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 148, disapproves onerous conditions that deprive a complainant of the opportunity to lead evidence, but does not require a trial where the pleaded case and available materials fail to disclose the statutory nexus.

Section 362 CrPC bars alteration or review of a signed judgment or final order, but a different conclusion at a later stage does not, by itself, violate that provision where the earlier order was interlocutory.

Revisional jurisdiction is directed to correcting jurisdictional error, patent legal infirmity, perversity, or miscarriage of justice; it is not a second appeal on facts.

The Court held that the petitioner’s marriage to her husband did not, by itself, establish a domestic relationship with every member of his family; the statutory relationship and shared-household nexus had to be shown respondent by respondent.

It found that the courts below had considered the pleadings and circumstances and concluded that the necessary relationship with the concerned respondents was not established.

On that basis, it rejected the contention that evidence was invariably required, reasoning that an evidentiary hearing cannot supply a statutory ingredient absent from the pleaded case and available materials.

The Court also found no Section 362 bar because the earlier order did not finally adjudicate the merits.

Although some remarks concerning the petitioner’s conduct and the civil dispute may have been broader than necessary, the Court considered them insufficient to invalidate the substantive determination.

It further held that the civil proceedings, standing alone, did not bar a remedy under the Act.

It dismissed C.R.R. No. 941 of 2023, left the appellate order operative, disposed of pending applications, and made no order as to costs.