Bombay HC cancels domestic violence case against married sister-in-law

Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh held that frequent visits of the married sister-in-law were not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in the shared household

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Wednesday held that provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005 cannot be invoked against a married sister-in-law of the complainant (the woman who was allegedly abused) even if she “keeps visiting the shared household frequently”.

The woman who was allegedly abused filed a DV complaint before a metropolitan magistrate court at Girgaum in 2022 against her husband (HT File Photo)

A single judge bench of Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh held that the frequent visits of the married sister-in-law were “devoid of permanency” and therefore “were not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in the shared household.”

“In my view, there was no subsisting domestic relationship between the Petitioner (sister-in-law) and the Respondent No 1 (aggrieved woman – the wife of her brother) and the Petitioner could not have been arrayed as Respondent in the DV application,” said the judge while striking down the DV proceedings against a Grant Road resident filed by her brother’s wife.

The woman who was allegedly abused filed a DV complaint before a metropolitan magistrate court at Girgaum in 2022 against her husband, his sister (the petitioner), and his mother alleging that they subjected her to domestic violence and drove her out of the matrimonial home.

After the sister-in-law took objection to the complainant naming her in the DV proceedings, the magistrate court had on October 18, 2022, dropped the DV proceedings against her, as she had married before her brother and the complainant were wedded, and resided separately at her matrimonial home.

The sessions court, however, reversed the order on September 16, 2023, holding the issue – whether the sister-in-law resided in the “shared household” together with the complainant woman would be required to be decided at the trial, prompting the petitioner to move the high court.

Justice Deshmukh upheld her contention that she was married in June 2021 – at least five months before the marriage of the complainant and resided separately at her matrimonial home and therefore cannot be said to be residing in a “shared household” with the complainant, and therefore could not have been named as a respondent in the DV proceedings.

The judge also rejected the complainant’s argument that the sister-in-law used to visit the shared household every afternoon and “stayed there till 8.00 pm” therefore requiring her to be treated as having resided together with the complainant in the shared household.

“Mere visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency are not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household,” said Justice Deshmukh while rejecting the argument.

The high court also took into consideration the fact that the allegations against the petitioner – sister-in-law were omnibus and general in nature and no specific acts of domestic violence were attributed to her and therefore “no case of domestic violence made out qua the Petitioner.”