Jammu & Kashmir High Court Dismisses Plea Against Second Domestic Violence Petition: "Past Co-habitation Sufficient to Establish Domestic Relationship Under DV Act"
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Dismisses Plea Against Second Domestic Violence Petition: "Past Co-habitation Sufficient to Establish Domestic Relationship Under DV Act"

Jammu & Kashmir High Court Dismisses Plea Against Second Domestic Violence Petition: “Past Co-habitation Sufficient to Establish Domestic Relationship Under DV Act”

Share this article

Court’s Decision

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed the petitioners’ plea challenging the maintainability of a second domestic violence petition filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The court found that the second petition was maintainable and ruled that the existence of a “domestic relationship” was not negated even though the respondent left the shared household in 2016. The court emphasized that the domestic relationship is determined by the fact that the parties had lived together in a shared household at any point in time.


Facts

  1. Marriage and Discord: The respondent (wife of the petitioners’ son) alleged harassment and abuse by her husband and in-laws, including dowry demands and physical violence. Their marriage was solemnized in 2015, but relations between the respondent and her in-laws deteriorated over time.
  2. Earlier Petition: The respondent filed a domestic violence petition earlier but withdrew it in 2021. She alleged that the withdrawal was based on assurances from the petitioners and her husband that she would be allowed to return to her matrimonial home.
  3. Subsequent Events: Despite the assurances, the petitioners allegedly reneged on their promise, demanded ₹30 lakhs, and forcibly evicted the respondent from the matrimonial home.
  4. Second Petition: The respondent filed a second domestic violence petition citing continued abuse and harassment, including financial demands and physical mistreatment.
  5. Lower Court Rulings:
    • The trial magistrate partially allowed an application by the petitioners, dropping proceedings against the sister-in-law of the respondent but rejecting the petitioners’ plea for dropping proceedings against them.
    • The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision.

Issues

  1. Maintainability of the Second Petition: Whether the second domestic violence petition was maintainable after the earlier petition was withdrawn.
  2. Existence of a Domestic Relationship: Whether the respondent could claim a domestic relationship with the petitioners despite leaving the shared household in 2016.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  1. Bar on Second Petition: The petitioners argued that the second petition was not maintainable as the earlier one had been withdrawn. They alleged that the respondent suppressed this fact and approached the court with unclean hands.
  2. Lack of Domestic Relationship: The petitioners contended that the respondent’s claims were baseless since she had not lived with them in the shared household since 2016. They argued that this absence negated the existence of a domestic relationship under the DV Act.

Respondent’s Arguments

  1. Withdrawal Based on Assurances: The respondent asserted that the earlier petition was withdrawn because the petitioners and her husband assured her that she could return to the matrimonial home. However, these assurances were not honored, leading her to file the second petition.
  2. Continuity of Domestic Relationship: The respondent maintained that she had lived with the petitioners in a shared household before 2016, fulfilling the requirements of a domestic relationship under the DV Act.

Analysis of the Law

  1. Section 12, DV Act: Allows an aggrieved person to file a petition before a magistrate seeking relief for domestic violence. The respondent must establish acts of domestic violence committed by the other party.
  2. Section 3, DV Act: Defines domestic violence, including physical, emotional, verbal, economic abuse, and dowry-related harassment.
  3. Section 2(f), DV Act: Defines a domestic relationship as a relationship between two people who live or have lived together in a shared household, provided they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or a relationship in the nature of marriage.
  4. Principle of Res Judicata: The court clarified that the doctrine of res judicata or similar procedural bars under the Civil Procedure Code do not apply to petitions under the DV Act, especially when the aggrieved person provides a valid explanation for refiling.

Precedent Analysis

While the judgment did not specifically cite prior cases, it relied on the principles embedded in the DV Act. The court underscored that the Act’s provisions must be interpreted liberally to ensure justice for aggrieved persons, particularly in cases involving domestic violence.


Court’s Reasoning

  1. Maintainability of the Second Petition:
    • The court noted that the respondent had not suppressed facts regarding the earlier petition. She had provided a detailed explanation about withdrawing the first petition based on assurances from the petitioners, which were later dishonored.
    • The court held that the respondent was justified in filing a second petition under the DV Act given the continued harassment and abuse she faced after withdrawing the earlier petition.
  2. Existence of Domestic Relationship:
    • The court emphasized that under Section 2(f) of the DV Act, a domestic relationship exists even if the parties lived together in a shared household at any point in time. The fact that the respondent left the shared household in 2016 did not negate the domestic relationship, as she had lived there earlier.
  3. Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts:
    • Both the trial court and the appellate court had concluded that the allegations against the petitioners were specific, serious, and constituted domestic violence. The High Court declined to interfere with these concurrent findings.

Conclusion

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that:

  • The respondent’s second petition was maintainable.
  • A domestic relationship existed between the parties.
  • The petitioners’ arguments lacked merit.

Implications

  1. Encourages Justice for Victims: The ruling reinforces the DV Act’s aim to provide a robust framework for addressing domestic violence, ensuring that procedural bars do not prevent justice.
  2. Broad Interpretation of Domestic Relationship: The court clarified that a domestic relationship extends beyond the present cohabitation, encompassing past shared living arrangements.
  3. Protection Against Misuse of Assurances: The judgment safeguards the rights of aggrieved persons who withdraw cases based on false assurances.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Resolves Division Bench Dispute on Exemplary Costs for Suppression of Facts in Petition Challenging MMRDA’s Rejection of Hoarding Retention

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *