The Kerala High Court has dismissed a domestic violence case against the parents of a complainant's daughter-in-law, ruling that no “domestic relationship,” as defined under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), existed between the complainant and the petitioners.

Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the case, addressed a complaint filed by Kunjumol Das against Sunny Mathew, Jolly Mathew, and their daughter Soniya Mathew, alleging domestic abuse.

However, the core issue was whether Kunjumol had a domestic relationship with the petitioners, a prerequisite under the DV Act.

The case revealed that Soniya Mathew married Kunjumol’s son, Aneesh Das, on February 19, 2018, and initially resided in a shared household in Kottarakara. Soniya accused her in-laws, including Kunjumol, of harassment and sought legal recourse under the DV Act. In response, Kunjumol filed a counter-complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act against Soniya and her parents, seeking an injunction to prevent them from entering her residence.

Clarifying the scope of the law, the court referred to Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which defines a “domestic relationship” as one where two individuals live or have lived in a shared household. While Kunjumol and Soniya shared such a relationship, no such connection existed between Kunjumol and Sunny or Jolly Mathew, as they never shared a household.

The court emphasized that Section 2(a) of the DV Act identifies an “aggrieved person” as a woman subjected to domestic violence by someone with whom she shares a domestic relationship. It concluded that the first two petitioners, Sunny and Jolly Mathew, did not qualify as respondents under the DV Act, as they neither lived in a shared household with Kunjumol nor were family members in a joint living arrangement.

Additionally, the court cautioned against the misuse of the DV Act, warning that invoking it without a legitimate domestic relationship constitutes an abuse of legal processes. The judgment stressed that courts must exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to prevent frivolous litigation and protect the interests of justice.

Consequently, the proceedings against Sunny and Jolly Mathew were quashed as they were deemed unsustainable.

Cause Title: Sunny Mathew v. State of Kerala [CRL.MC No. 1370 of 2021].