Introduction:

In a recent verdict, the Bombay High Court delved into the intricacies of the definition of a domestic relationship under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh quashed a domestic violence case against a married sister-in-law, emphasizing that mere frequent visits to the complainant’s shared household without permanency do not establish a domestic relationship. The judgment sheds light on the essential elements required to constitute a domestic relationship and underscores the need for specific evidence in domestic violence cases.

Arguments:

The complainant filed a domestic violence complaint against her husband, mother-in-law, unmarried brother-in-law, and the petitioner, her married sister-in-law. The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application against the petitioner, citing the absence of a domestic relationship. However, the Sessions Court allowed the complainant’s appeal, prompting the petitioner to challenge the order in the high court. The petitioner argued that her separate residence and lack of cohabitation with the complainant precluded the existence of a domestic relationship. Conversely, the complainant contended that the petitioner’s frequent visits constituted a domestic relationship.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Deshmukh reiterated the requirement of a shared household and cohabitation to establish a domestic relationship under the DV Act. Since the petitioner resided separately in her matrimonial house, distinct from the shared household, the court ruled out the existence of a domestic relationship. Additionally, the court emphasized the lack of specific incidents of domestic violence attributable to the petitioner and deemed the allegations unsubstantiated. Notably, the court clarified that previous judgments cited by the complainant did not apply to the present case, highlighting the importance of considering each case’s unique circumstances.