The Bombay High Court rejected a domestic violence case against a woman's sister-in-law who was married, stating that the sister-in-law's frequent visits to the complainant's household without establishing permanent residence did not meet the criteria for shared household occupancy.

The single-headed bench of Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh granted permission for a writ petition filed by the sister-in-law, contesting the Sessions Court's decision to overturn the Metropolitan Magistrate's dismissal of the domestic violence complaint against her.

The complainant submitted an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking remedies under different sections of the Act against her husband, mother-in-law, unmarried brother-in-law, and the petitioner, who is the married sister-in-law.

Nonetheless, the Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Girgaon, Mumbai, rejected the application against the petitioner, ruling that there existed no domestic relationship between the parties due to their lack of cohabitation in a shared household. The court issued notice solely to the other accused individuals.

The complainant's appeal against this ruling was upheld by the Sessions Court, which determined that the issue of whether a domestic relationship existed between the petitioner and the complainant should be determined during the trial based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the petitioner approached the high court to challenge the Sessions Court's decision. The petitioner contended that since she resided in her own matrimonial home, distinct from the shared household of the complainant, there was no domestic relationship between them as per Section 2(f) of the DV Act, which defines "domestic relationship."

The complainant argued that the petitioner's regular visits to the shared household constituted a domestic relationship, regardless of her separate residence.

However, the court emphasized that as per the definition outlined in the DV Act, a domestic relationship requires both a shared household and a certain level of cohabitation. The court reiterated that a domestic relationship refers to a bond between individuals who reside or have previously resided together in a shared household.

The court observed that the petitioner's marriage was solemnised  before the marriage of the complainant to the petitioner's brother, and there was never any cohabitation between the petitioner and the complainant in the shared household. Additionally, the court noted that the address provided by the petitioner in the domestic violence application differed from the address of the shared household, further indicating that the petitioner resided separately in her matrimonial home.

The complainant in her application claimed that her married sister-in-law spent her entire day in the shared household, emphasizing her daily visits from 2:00 pm to 8:00 pm. “The pleadings as regards the visits of the Petitioner do not indicate an element of permanency sufficient enough to constitute domestic relationship even if it is accepted that the Petitioner was spending her entire day in the shared household”, the court opined.

Considering that the petitioner resided separately, the court concluded that there was no domestic relationship as defined by the Act. Moreover, the court determined that the allegations leveled against the petitioner in the complaint were broad and unsupported, lacking specific incidents of domestic violence that could be attributed to her.