Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025

Posted on February 15, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

From Paras 13-14,

13. From the above analysis, it is clear for holding a person liable u/s 3 of Domestic Violence Act, the following condition must be satisfied:
“The respondent must be related to the aggrieved person in the manner as mentioned in Section 2(f) and he lived or has been living together with aggrieved person in a shared household and then commits domestic violence in the manner mentioned in Section 3 of Domestic Violence Act.”
14. This Court came across number of cases where just to harass the family of husband or the person in domestic relationship, aggrieved party used to implicate the relatives of other side who are not even living or lived with the aggrieved person in shared household and they have been residing at separate places. Therefore, courts below while issuing notice u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act must look into this fact from the perusal of the application filed u/s 12 of the Domestic Violence Act along with other available record including the report of the Protection Officer, if available on record. It is further observed that the concerned courts before issuing notices to the persons impleaded as respondents in the application under Domestic Violence Act should satisfy about the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in paragraph no. 13 of this judgment.

From Para 20,

20. The court below is free to proceed against applicant nos. 1 and 7 and decide Case No. 59 of 2016 (Smrita Srivastava Vs. Rajiv Kumar Srivastava and others) expeditiously within a period of 60 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order.

Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025

Index of DV cases is here.

Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay 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 So far as original respondent nos.2 to 4 i.e. mother, sister and brother of the husband are concerned, it is averred in the application at paragraph 10 that mother and sister of the husband came to Pune for residing there for fifteen days. During that fifteen days, sister of the husband used to quarrel with the aggrieved person with a reason that the aggrieved person was not preparing chapatis in proper manner and chapatis prepared by her were not liked by mother of the husband. Some routine allegations are made in paragraph 10 and it is averred that on say of the mother and sister, the husband used to beat the aggrieved person. It is further averred that the husband, his mother and sister then took the Mangalsutra from the aggrieved person when she proceeded to her parental house on 25th January 2017. It is apparent from the pleadings in the application that subsequently, the aggrieved person returned to her matrimonial house and cohabited with her husband. It is not further pleaded that her Mangalsutra was not returned to her thereafter.
8 So far as petitioner no.4/original respondent no.4 – brother of the husband is concerned, it appears that he is suffering from some ailment and for his treatment, he had come to Pune and was admitted at the Jehangir Hospital. It is further averred that the aggrieved person was frightened of this brother of her husband. The learned counsel for petitioners/original respondents submitted that he is suffering from mental ailment and this fact is clear from pleadings made in the application that he was admitted in the Jehangir Hospital at Pune.
9 Definition of domestic violence found in Section 3 is an inclusive definition having wide scope. However, to constitute an act of domestic violence, the act must be having certain intensity as well as repetitions. Short visits of parental relatives of the husband are not sufficient to rope them in a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act.

Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of DV Judgments is here.

Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of DV Judgments is here.

Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024

Posted on February 15, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay High Court held as follows,

From Para 12,

12. The issue presented for consideration is whether the Petitioner who is the married sister in law of the aggrieved person and admittedly residing in her own matrimonial house can be stated to be in a domestic relationship within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the D.V. Act particularly when the marriage of the Petitioner has taken place prior to the marriage of the Respondent No.1. While deciding the above issue the incidental issue to be decided is whether the allegation in the application that the Petitioner used to spend her whole day in the shared household is sufficient to constitute domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the Petitioner.
13. The relationship between the parties inter se is not disputed neither the factum of the Petitioner’s marriage being solemnised prior to the marriage of the Respondent No 1. The separate residence of the Petitioner at her matrimonial house is also borne out from the address of the Petitioner given in the domestic violence application which is different from the address of the shared household.

From Para 16,

16. The facts of the instant case makes it evident that the Petitioner and the Respondent No 1 never resided together in the shared household i.e. the matrimonial house of the Respondent No.1 at “Siddesh Jyoti Tower”. To salvage the situation, given the above noted admitted position, Mr. Desai would contend that the decision of Apex Court in Prabha Tyagi (supra) as well as the decision in Rashmi Mehrotra (supra) has held that it was not mandatory for the aggrieved person to have actually resided with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled. I am unable to subscribe to the reading of the decision of the Apex Court as desired by Mr.Desai. The decision in the case of Prabha Tyagi (supra) is being read by Mr. Desai dehors the facts of that case which are completely distinguishable.

From Para 20,

20. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Prabha Tyagi (supra) will not assist the case of Respondent No 1 as the Petitioner is the married sister-in-law residing in her own matrimonial house and it cannot be said that the right of the aggrieved person to reside in the shared household would constitute a subsisting domestic relationship with the Petitioner. It would have been a different matter if the Petitioner was unmarried and was residing in the shared household in which case considering the right to reside conferred by Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act, the aggrieved person could have been said to be in subsisting domestic relationship with the Petitioner even if the parties had never resided together in the shared household. It is the right of the aggrieved person to reside in the shared household which constitutes domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and persons residing in the shared household. However, such are not the facts in the instant case as Petitioner is residing separately in her matrimonial house.

From Para 23,

23. Now coming to the pleadings in the application, it is pleaded by the Respondent No 1 that the Petitioner was spending her whole day in the shared household. The said pleading finds place in the paragraph describing the inter se relationship between the aggrieved person and the Respondents. The other pleading is that the Petitioner everyday used to come to the shared household at 2:00 p.m. and leave at around 8:00 p.m. The marriage of the Respondent No.1 was solemnized on 20th November, 2021 and has claimed to be dispossessed on 30th January, 2022. The pleadings as regards the visits of the Petitioner do not indicate an element of permanency sufficient enough to constitute domestic relationship even if it is accepted that the Petitioner was spending her entire day in the shared household.

Finally, from Para 27,

27. In view of the discussion above, in my view, there was no subsisting domestic relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent No 1 and the Petitioner could not have been arrayed as Respondent in the D.V. application. The mere visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household. Even otherwise considering the pleadings in the applications read with the reliefs, there is no case of domestic violence made out qua the Petitioner.

Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024

Index of DV cases is here.

Bharti Anand Vs Sushant Anand and Ors on 26 Apr 2022

Posted on February 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 13-15,

13. Although the complaint contains several allegations against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as noted above, as far as the living arrangements are concerned, it is the case of the complainant herself that the matrimonial home in Jalandhar was shared between her and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (being the sister-in-law of the petitioner and her husband) visited often for various lengths of time, but there is no suggestion that they were, or intended to be, permanently resident in the said household. It is in this context that the MM and the Appellate Court have reached the conclusion that there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
14. The Supreme Court in Satish Chander Ahuja vs. Sneha Ahuja7, with respect to the definition of shared household in the DV Act, has observed inter alia as follows:-
“68. The words “lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship” have to be given its normal and purposeful meaning. The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared household or not. As noted above, the 2005 Act was enacted to give a higher right in favour of women. The 2005 Act has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of the women who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. The Act has to be interpreted in a manner to effectuate the very purpose and object of the Act. Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the 2005 Act grants an entitlement in favour of the woman of the right of residence under the shared household irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same or not.”
15. While the above observations of the Court are in the context of the place of residence of the “aggrieved person”, it would equally apply to the identification of those who may be properly impleaded as respondents on the basis of residence in the shared household. Just as the woman living fleetingly or casually at different places, would not convert those places into a “shared household”, the visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency or the intention to treat the premises as shared household, would not render them as members of the “shared household”.

Bharti Anand Vs Sushant Anand and Ors on 26 Apr 2022

Index of Domestic Violence cases is here.

Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023

Posted on August 4, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge at Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court held as follows,

From Para 9,

9. In the backdrop of aforesaid provisions, if the precedents are considered, then it is clear that the Hon’ble Apex Court no doubt, in the case of Kamatchi (supra) has held that the proceedings under the DV Act are essentially in the nature of civil proceedings. It is however, pertinent to note that the said judgment is passed in the context of challenge to the order passed by the Trial Court holding that the proceeding fled before it is barred by limitation. It is held in paragraph No. 20 of the judgment that :
“20. It is thus clear that the High Court wrongly equated fling of an application under Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution. In our considered view, the High Court was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been fled within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence.”
Thus, by implication applicability of the provision of Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure is excluded. In respectful view of this Court, in the said judgment, the issue whether or not the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has application to DV Act, was not involved nor decided therein.

From Para 13,

13. No doubt, the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked as a matter of course. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that if the High Court finds that any proceedings is abuse of process of Court then in that case, non-invocation of provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be justified. It needs to be recorded that merely because the enactment of DV Act is to provide for more effective protection of the right of woman, it would not mean that a proceedings which is palpably not tenable shall be allowed to be continued. If it is allowed so, then it will be nothing less than sheer abuse of process of Court. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the present application for quashment of proceeding under DV Act is maintainable.

From Paras 16, 17 and 18,

16. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the said submission by stating that the said issue cannot be decided at this stage as the same would be subject matter of trial after leading evidence.
17. In order to decide this controversy, it would be relevant to take note of provisions which define “aggrieved person” and “domestic relationship”. Section 2(a) of DV Act defines “aggrieved person” which reads thus :-
2(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.
Section 2(f) states “domestic relationship” to be “a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared
household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family”.
According to these definitions, domestic relationship between aggrieved person and respondent is sine qua non to maintain any proceeding under DV Act. In order to constitute relationship between two persons as domestic relationship, they must live or at any point of time lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Admittedly, the relationship of respondent with applicants No. 4 to 6 is as a family member. Thus, in order to constitute domestic relationship, the family members of the aggrieved person must be living together with aggrieved person as joint family. It is, therefore, essential that the applicant pleads that there is domestic relationship between her and respondent and that the other family members have lived or are living together as a joint family, to maintain any such complaint/application under the provisions of the DV Act.
18. In the instant case, applicants No. 4 to 6 have come out with a specific case that they never lived as joint family with the respondent. In order to substantiate the said contention,documentary evidence such as Aadhar Card etc. is placed on record. Genuineness thereof is not challenged. On the other hand perusal of the complaint/application to the Magistrate does not show pleadings that these applicants have lived or living with the respondent together as members of joint family. Thus, for want of specific pleadings, and in view of unimpeachable evidence placed on record by these applicants showing their separate place of residence, the application/complaint against such applicants could not have been entertained as these applicants do not come within the definition of domestic relationship with the respondent.

From Para 21,

21. Unfortunately, similar trend seems to have been adopted and proceedings under DV Act are filed at even distant place i.e. place where aggrieved person resides as per Section 2(s) of Act and not only husband and joint family members residing under one roof are made respondents but distant relatives those who have no domestic relationship are also roped in order to cause harassment and to build pressure on husband. In considered view of this Court the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, apply to the cases under DV Act, which are filed in clear abuse of process of Court. The present case is squarely covered by illustrations (1), (3) and (7) in case of Bhajanlal (supra) and hence such proceeding cannot be permitted to be continued.

Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.barandbench.com/news/bombay-high-court-concern-rise-trend-women-misusing-domestic-violence-act

Bombay High Court Raises Concern Over Misuse of Domestic Violence Act by Estranged Wives

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Posted on September 13, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of a Sessions Court in Mumbai held as follows:

From Para 5,

5] Perusal of the application under Section 12 of the D. V. Act filed by the applicant has several references to the alleged domestic violence committed by the respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that he resides separately and not with the appellant or the respondent No. 1. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his impugned order has observed that since the respondent No. 1 never resided with the appellant in any shared household he cannot be considered to be the respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. He, therefore, omitted him from the array of the respondents in the main application.

From Para 6,

6] Such an observation of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate however, is wholly misplaced. It is for the simple reason that the proviso to Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act makes it very clear that an aggrieved wife can also file a complaint against a relative of the husband. The Act nowhere mandates that an aggrieved person can seek relief only against the persons who have shared household with her. Had that been so, it would have been very convenient to cause violence or any other trouble to the aggrieved person through the relatives not sharing the same household and yet remained out of the clutches of the D. V. Act. Rather, holding that any relative of the husband if not sharing or shared the same household cannot be a respondent would amount to giving licence to those relatives to commit violence to the aggrieved person and thereby rendering the very Act meaningless. That just cannot be and certainly was not the intention while enacting the said statute. As observed earlier, there are sufficient references to show that the respondent No. 1 was also a party to the domestic violence committed to the appellant. As such, the proceedings against him was certainly tenable. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was obviously wrong in holding that the respondent No. 1 since not shared the household with the appellant could not be a respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. Consequently, the impugned order cannot sustain.

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

A Revision was dismissed by the Bombay High Court here.

Index of DV Cases here.

Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019

Posted on April 29, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that, there is no allegations of domestic violence against the respondents and more importantly, there is no shared household between the complainant and the respondents.

The High Court has rightly found in effect that the ingredients of domestic violence are wholly absent in this case. The petitioner and the respondents are not persons living together in a shared household. There is a vague allegation that the respondents are family members. There is not a whisper of the respondents with the petitioner. They appear to be neighbours.

Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46655686/

https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/MzAxMg==/Supreme-Court-If-Parties-Are-Not-Living-Together-In-A-Shared-House-Domestic-Violence-Complaint-Not-Maintainable

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Kamlesh-Devi-Versus-Jaipal-and-Others-2019-10-04

https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/complaint-not-maintainable-if-parties-are-living-separately/

Here is the High Court decision:

The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, after discussing the provisions of the Act found that none of the witnesses on record has established any fact to the effect that the respondents and the petitioner have been living in a shared household and the respondents have caused domestic violence upon them. The Court below also held that no violence whatsoever has been alleged of any kind within the premises of shared household. The only allegation is that though they did obscene activities with the daughters of the petitioner, the allegations as per pleadings are that respondents Jaipal, Krishan Kumar and Sandeep used to misbehave with the daughters of the petitioner, namely, Anusaya and Gaytri while they went outside for the purpose of their study and they used to do obscene activities with the daughters of the petitioner. The findings given by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, are correct as per evidence and law. No illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul.
From the perusal of the complaint itself, it transpires that the offence, if any, which has been alleged, falls in the provisions of IPC and it does not attract the provisions of the Act. The important fact that accused Jaipal, Krishan Kumar and Sandeep are the nephews itself will not bring the case under the Act.
The appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, before the learned Sessions Judge was also dismissed by giving the reasoning as per law. The learned Sessions Judge also discussed that there is not an iota of evidence that the petitioner Kamlesh Devi and the respondents are living together in share household. Rather, certificate Ex.C.3/Ex.PW.1/C also shows that it has been mentioned therein that Sube Singh alias Shiv Lal, Siri Ram, Chhote Lal and Babu Lal reside separately in separate houses. Protection Officer had also reported that Kamlesh Devi along with her family is residing at Narnaul since a long time and had performed the marriages of her daughters at Narnaul and Smt. Kamlesh Devi and her husband are not residing in Village Gaud. The learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul also held that Kamlesh Devi-petitioner is not aggrieved person under the provision of Section 2(a) of the Act and is not entitled to any protection under Section 18 of the Act. A perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below shows that the same have been passed as per evidence and law and the same are upheld.

Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 16 Sep 2016

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e24c7f546571b7222aa868e

S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020

Posted on March 15, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of the Apex Court, in an attempt to balance the rights of parties, purportedly in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution, allowed a party to stay in a residence owner by the Parents-in-law.

S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020

Citations : [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 1023]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71453821/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5fe97792814df3882b7c2a16

Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022

Posted on March 15, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Single judge bench of Delhi High Court held that the Court has to balance the rights of the aggrieved person and the parents-in-law when the question of residence arises for the aggrieved person while her marital relationship subsists.

From Paras 24 and 25,

24. Admittedly where the parties are residing is a flat, having only three bed rooms, a drawing room and the appellant is in possession of a room in the said flat, then considering there are various complaints filed by them against each other; their relations being not cordial, would it in such circumstances, be appropriate for them to stay together and fight every minute of their existence. In Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) in para No.90 the Court had observed we need to strike a balance between the rights of daughter-in-law and her in-laws.
25. Admittedly, the right of residence under Section 19 of the DV Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. In this case, both being senior citizens of aged about 74 and 69 years and being in the evening of their life, are entitled to live peacefully and not to be haunted by the marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law.

From Para 27,

27. Thus, where the residence is a shared household, it does not create any embargo upon the owner to claim eviction against his daughter-in-law. A strained frictional relationship between the parties would be relevant to decide whether the grounds of eviction exist. I am of the considered opinion, since there exist a frictional relationship between the parties, then at the fag end of their lives it would not be advisable for old parents to stay with appellant and hence it would be appropriate if an alternative accommodation is provided to the appellant as is directed in the impugned order per Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

And finally from Para 28,

28. Thus, there is no force in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. The undertaking made at Bar to provide an alternative accommodation to the appellant till her matrimony exists be filed in the form of an affidavit of the respondent within two weeks from today before the learned Trial Court. The execution of decree be postponed till such suitable alternative accommodation is found and the applicant is conveniently shifted therein. The learned Trial Court to impose conditions in case of non-payment of rental including electricity /water charges etc by respondent.

Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022

Citations : [2022 SCC ONLINE DEL 594]

Other Sources :

https://caselaw.in/delhi/shared-household-ravneet-kaur-prithpal-singh-dhingra/16/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6217abd79fca1954d2a81a9a

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: No Shared Household

Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025

Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020

Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023

Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024

Bharti Anand Vs Sushant Anand and Ors on 26 Apr 2022

Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019

S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020

Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022