A single judge of AP High Court held that when there is No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members.

From Para 7,

7. A perusal of the D.V.C. application would show that the aggrieved woman’s husband and in-laws and the siblings of her husband all are natives of Adapareddypalli Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. By the time the D.V.C. was filed the husband of the aggrieved woman has been working as a Software Engineer at Houstan, Texas, United States of America. Aggrieved woman’s in-laws are living at their native places. Siblings of the aggrieved woman’s husband are also employed and Sri M.Suresh Reddy is working at Bangalore and Sri M.Prasad Reddy working at Hyderabad or Tirupathi. The application in D.V.C. also indicates that subsequent to the marriage the spouses lived for some time at Adapareddypalli Village and thereafter they lived at Mysore of Karnataka State and thereafter they went Abroad and lived together at Houstan, Texas, United States of America. Finally the aggrieved woman and her child came back to India and they have been living with the woman’s parents at Aditya Nagar, Nellore in SPSR Nellore District. D.V.C. was filed at Nellore. All the above facts are not in dispute.

From Paras 9 and 10, (All the respondents, except husband, reside are different locations; No shared household)

9. Coming to the parents and siblings of her husband, at para No.4 of the application, the aggrieved woman states that respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein, who are siblings of her husband, used to visit Adapareddypalli Village during weekends when she was brought by her husband from Mysore to the native place. It is on those occasions, the siblings of her husband used to harass her for money and additional dowry.
10. Coming to her in-laws, the aggrieved person at pares No.5 of her application in D.V.C. mentions that all the cruelty and bad conduct of her husband used to be informed by her to her in-laws, but they used to support their son and all of them together demanded her to bring additional dowry. It is with those allegations, the D.V.C. was filed seeking various reliefs.

From Para 17,

17. The term shared household is hinged on the concept of intentional residence of the parties in one household. Mere fleeting or casual living does not make one a shared household vide Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahujal and Rajnesh v. Neha2. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioners cited the judgment of the then composite High Court in P.Sugunamma v. State of A.P.3. Referring to a similar situation where relatives of the husband have not been living along with the spouses but living elsewhere with periodical or sporadic visits, it was held that where any person who is so related who has been not living or had not lived together at any point of time with the aggrieved person in a shared household they cannot be said to be in domestic relationship. To the similar effect is the law spelt out by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra4. The averments in the application in D.V.C. of the aggrieved person do indicate that since the time of marriage it is the spouses who lived together under one roof at different places at all times and the remaining respondents who are their family members have been living at different other places and in their own respective houses. It is on occasions they paid visits to the spouses. Such occasional visits were only meant for those occasions and they were never intended and could not be intended to be visits making one to think that they are holding shared household. The definition of “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Act, 2005 requires a domestic relationship and domestic relationship as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005 means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. The facts mentioned in the application in D.V.C. clearly show that, that domestic relationship is absent between the aggrieved woman on one hand and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on the other hand. It is in that view of the matter, one has to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners that without there being any case disclosed by the application in D.V.C. permitting the learned Magistrate to take up further proceedings against them would be abuse of process of Court.

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of DV Judgments is here.