Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has dealt with 4 key questions in this judgment, namely,

(i) Whether the instant petition is maintainable, in view of the fact that the petitioners had initially approached this court seeking to challenge the orders passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-24095 of 2015 and the same proceedings had been dismissed as withdrawn?
(ii) Whether the proceedings under the DV Act are maintainable against petitioners No.1 and 2, since it is admitted that they did not reside together with the respondent?
(iii) Whether the complainant-respondent would be entitled to reside in Flat No. 701, Tower 3 Uniworld Garden Sohna, Road Gurgaon, which is not belonging to her husband-petitioner No.3?
(iv) Whether the proceedings under the DV Act initiated prior in time to the decree of divorce would still be maintainable against petitioner No.3, even though the complainant-respondent has subsequently re-married?

The same are answered as follows

(i) As such, this question is answered against the respondent, holding that this petition is maintainable.

(ii) Therefore, from the above averments made in the complaint itself, it is abundantly clear that petitioners No.1 and 2 never resided or stayed together with respondent in a domestic relationship as defined in Section 2 (f) of the DV Act. Consequently, the complaint filed under the DV Act is clearly not maintainable against petitioners No.1 and 2 herein. As such, this question is answered in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2. Consequently, the complaint filed under the DV Act along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, including the impugned orders, are hereby quashed qua petitioners No.1 and 2.

(iii) From Para 19, In view of the foregoing discussion and ratio of law held by the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra’s case (supra) the third question formed by this court is answered against the respondent-wife. The house in question, being exclusively belonging to petitioner No.2 (father-in-law), it cannot be called a “shared household” within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the DV Act. Therefore, the complainant-respondent has no right to reside in the said flat and the injunction order passed by the court restraining petitioner No.2 from dispossessing her is clearly unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order dated 1.12.2014 passed by the trial court as well as order dated 02.06.2015 passed by the lower Appellate Court restraining the petitioners herein from dispossessing the complainant-respondent from the flat in question is set aside.

(iv) The complaint filed by the respondent cannot be quashed at this stage regarding the allegations against petitioner No 3. Therefore, this question is answered against petitioner No.3.