Recently, the single-headed bench of Justice RM Joshi of the Bombay High Court held that physically disabled person is not incapable of giving threats.

The Court in its judgements refused to quash a domestic violence case against a disabled woman accused of abusing and threatening her daughter-in-law.

“It is sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the applicant no.3 mother-in-law that she is physically disabled person and therefore she cannot be said to have committed any domestic violence against the respondent. The allegation against applicant no.3 is that she used to abuse and threaten the respondent. Needless to state that physically handicapped person in all cases need not be said to be incapable to give such threats. It would be the matter of evidence during trial before the learned Magistrate to ascertain as to whether any domestic violence was caused to respondent by these applicants. Suffice it to say that prima facie perusal of the application indicates that respondent was subjected to domestic violence”, the court held.

Five individuals, including the complainant's husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law, husband of the sister-in-law, and brother-in-law, who were accused of domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), filed a criminal application before the High Court, seeking to have the case against them dismissed.

Advocate Niranjan Deshpande counsel for the applicants submitted that the complaint against them lacked specific instances of domestic violence, rendering it inadmissible before the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Dhule. Further, the mother-in-law being physically disabled cannot commit domestic violence, it was argued.

Further, it was argued that the sister-in-law and her husband resided separately and had never shared a common household with the complainant.

To clarify, the DV Act defines an 'aggrieved person' under Section 2(a) and 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f). It stipulates that domestic violence proceedings apply to individuals who have lived together in a shared household when related by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage, or living together as a joint family.

Regarding the husband and other applicants, the court observed that they resided in a joint family with the complainant for a brief period. However, the DV Act does not prescribe a specific duration for a domestic relationship, the court said.

Therefore, the court refused to quash the proceedings against complainant’s husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law, but quashed the proceedings against complainant’s sister-in-law and husband of sister-in-law.