The Allahabad High Court recently remarked on the tendency to implicate family members who do not reside in the shared household in domestic violence cases, resulting in an abuse of legal processes.

The Court stressed that such allegations should be thoroughly examined before issuing notices under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

This observation arose from a petition filed by Krishnawati Devi and six others, seeking to quash proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. The case was rooted in matrimonial discord between Smrita Srivastava, the complainant, and her husband, Rajiv Kumar Srivastava.

The complainant had named several of her husband's relatives, including his mother and married sisters, as respondents in the case.

Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, in his bench, pointed out that according to Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act, a respondent must be in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person. Section 2(f) further defines a domestic relationship as one where both parties have lived together in a shared household. The Court found that the relatives named as respondents—married sisters and other distant family members—did not reside in the shared household with the complainant.

Citing prior judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Hiral P. Harsora vs. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, the High Court reaffirmed that only individuals in a domestic relationship, having lived in a shared household with the complainant, can be made respondents in a domestic violence case.

The Court also warned against the growing trend of implicating extended family members to pressure the opposing party. It noted that in several cases, aggrieved parties had named relatives who did not live with them in the shared household, merely to harass them. The Court emphasized that lower courts, before issuing notices under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, must carefully scrutinize the petition, along with other available records, including reports from the Protection Officer if applicable.

The Court further highlighted that before issuing notices to respondents, courts must ensure that the conditions outlined in paragraph 13 of the judgment are met, particularly those related to liability under Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act.

In the present case, the Court found the allegations against the married sisters and other distant relatives to be without merit and quashed the proceedings against them. However, it upheld the case against the husband and mother-in-law, noting that they had lived with the complainant in the shared household and were specifically accused of harassment and dowry demands. The Court ordered the trial against them to be expedited and completed within 60 days.