The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently ruled that the term 'domestic relationship' under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) encompasses relationships between individuals who have previously lived together in a shared household.

The bench headed by Justice Sanjay Dhar made this observation while rejecting the plea to dismiss domestic violence charges against the woman’s in-laws.

The in-laws had contended that the DV case was not maintainable, as they no longer shared a domestic relationship with the complainant after she left the matrimonial home in 2016. However, the Court dismissed this argument, stating that it was sufficient that the in-laws had previously shared a domestic relationship with their estranged daughter-in-law.

"The definition (of 'domestic violence' under the DV Act) makes it clear that ‘domestic relationship’ would include even a relationship between two persons who may have lived together. Therefore, even if the respondent has left the shared household in the year 2016, but the fact of the matter remains that prior to that, she has admittedly lived in a shared household with the petitioners. Thus, there was a domestic relationship between the parties," the Court said.

The case involved a complaint filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws, accusing them of taunting and assaulting her for not bringing enough dowry following her marriage in 2015. This was the second complaint the woman had filed, with the first being withdrawn in 2021.

After the fresh complaint was lodged, the charges against the woman’s sister-in-law were eventually dropped by a Jammu court. However, the same relief was not granted to her parents-in-law (the petitioners), leading them to approach the High Court.

The petitioners contended that the complainant (daughter-in-law) could not file a second complaint on the same matter after withdrawing her earlier complaint in 2021. However, the Court was not persuaded by this argument.

"Procedure pertaining to res judicata (a principle to restrain courts from re-examining issues that are already settled), or even principles in the nature of res judicata, can not be made applicable to the proceedings under the DV Act, particularly in a case where the aggrieved person has explained the circumstances under which she has filed the second petition after withdrawal of the earlier petition," it said.

The petitioners also contended that they no longer shared a domestic relationship with the complainant. However, this argument was similarly rejected by the Court on November 8. Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea filed by the parents-in-law.