With a Revision challenging decision of the District Court here, the single judge bench of Bombay High Court relying on Prabha Tyagi case here, held that removal of Respondents from DV case is unsustainable for lack of shared household requirement.
From Para 16, (such a blatant misinterpretation; only breach of Sec 18 Order is a punishable crime; nothing else)
16. The Apex Court, in the case of Kunapareddy Alias Nookala Shanka Balaji vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari And Another5, has observed that the proceedings under D.V. Act are predominantly of civil nature. It is only when there is a breach of order passed under any of the Section from 18 to 23. Such breach is punishable offence.
From Para 22,
Ali Hamid Daruwala Vs Nahida Rishad Cooper and Anr on 28 Feb 2023In view of the judgment of Hon’be Apex Court in case of Prabha Tyagi (supra), the contention of learned Advocate that the Applicant had never lived in a shared household or was never in domestic relationship with the complainant and, therefore, the application was not maintainable, is not sustainable in law. Moreover, such a question would only be decided on full fledged hearing of the matter, i.e. after parties adduce evidence in support of their respective case.
Citation:
Other Sources:
Index of DV Cases here.
