Delhi High Court
Poonam Gandhi vs State (Nct) Of Delhi & Ors on 3 July, 2025
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 21st March, 2025
Date of Decision: 03rd July, 2025
+ CRL.M.C. 1916/2025
POONAM GANDHI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. L.M. Grover, Adv. (Through VC)
versus
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC (CRL)
with Mr. Alok Sharma and Ms.
Jyotsana Pandit, Advs.
SI Awant PS Janakpuri
Mr. Roshan Lal Saini, Adv. for R-2 to
R-6 (Through VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
% JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:
1. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS') read with Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1908 ('CrPC') for quashing of the following order(s):
(i) order dated 02.02.2023 passed by LD. M.M., Mahila Court-05,
South-west District, Dwarka Courts, Delhi in the case no. MC
833/2022 titled 'Poonam Gandhi v. Sumit Gandhi & Ors' ('Trial
Court');
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 1 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
(ii) order dated 10.07.2023 passed by LD. ASJ-02, South-west District,
New Delhi in the case titled as 'Poonam Gandhi v. State & Ors.'
bearing C.A. No. 158/2023 ('Appellate Court') upholding the Trial
Court's order dated 02.02.2023.
1.1. In addition, the Petitioner seeks directions to the Trial Court to summon
Respondent nos. 3 to 6 to face the proceedings filed under the provisions of
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV act') by
the Petitioner.
2. This petition was initially numbered as W.P.(CRL.) 200/2024,
however, vide order dated 11.03.2025, the petition was converted into a
CRL.(M.C.) and treated as a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
3. Facts relevant to adjudicate the present matters are as under: -
3.1. It is stated that Petitioner has filed an application/complaint under
section 12 of the DV act before the Trial Court against her husband
[Respondent no. 2], parents-in-law [Respondent nos. 3 & 4] and her brother-
in-law and his wife [Respondent no. 5 & 6] seeking the following reliefs:
a. To pass protection order under Section 18 of the DV act by restraining the
Respondents from committing any act of domestic violence.
b. To pass residence orders under Section 19 of the DV act by directing
the respondents to provide alternate accommodation
c. To pass the monetary relief under section 20 of the DV act by directing
Respondent/husband to pay the minimum amount of Rs. 30.000/- per
month
d. To pass compensation order under section 22 of the DV act by directing
the Respondents to pay the aggrieved a sum of Rs. l 0,00,000/- on account
of mental torture and agony.
Facts alleged in the complaint
3.2. It is stated that the marriage between the Petitioner and Respondent no.
2/husband was solemnized on 01.12.2001 and the expenses of the marriage
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 2 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
were borne by the parents of the Petitioner and a lot of gifts as demanded by
Respondent nos. 2 to 6 were as well given by the parents of the
Petitioner/complainant.
3.3. It is alleged in the complaint that, after the marriage, from the very next
day the Petitioner was subjected to various kind of cruelties by the Respondent
nos. 3 & 4/parents-in-law.
3.4. It is alleged in the complaint that till 2004 whenever Petitioner used to
touch feet of Respondent no. 4/father-in-law, he used abusive words against
her and Respondent no.3/mother-in-law used to make fun of Petitioner’s
physical appearance.
3.5. It is alleged in the complaint that during the Petitioner’s pregnancy,
the Petitioner had requested Respondent nos. 2-6 for installation of air
conditioner (‘AC’) in the house, however, not only this request was denied
but Respondent No. 3/mother-in-law ill-treated the Petitioner by taunting and
passing insulting comments.
3.6. It is alleged that on 15.09.2003, when Petitioner gave birth to a female
child, the Respondent nos. 2 to 6 had not only shown resentment; but during
the chola ceremony of child, the Petitioner was insulted by the Respondent
nos. 2 to 6 due to non-fulfilment of demands; and thereafter Respondent no.2
refused to sit in the hawan of his daughter and the Petitioner had to perform
the pooja alone.
3.7. It is alleged that Respondent no. 3/mother-in-law used to not only pass
unwarranted remarks but she deprived the Petitioner of her basic needs and
did not allow the Petitioner to get some money from the earnings of her
husband i.e. Respondent no.2.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 3 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
3.8. It is stated that in the year 2013 the Petitioner and Respondent no. 2 to
6 shifted to a newly purchased house in East Azad Nagar consisting of Ground
floor, First floor and Second Floor [‘East Azad Nagar property’]. It is stated
that Petitioner along with Respondent no.2 was residing at the Second Floor
of East Azad Nagar property. It is stated at that time Petitioner was also forced
by the Respondent nos. 2 to 6 to sell her gold bangles.
3.9. It is alleged that even after meeting all their demands, the behavior of
Respondent nos. 2 to 6 never changed and the use of abusive words against
the Petitioner and her parents became a routine activity.
3.10. It is alleged that on 15.06.2014 Respondent no. 2/husband had slapped
the complainant in front of Respondent nos. 3 to 6 and instead of stopping
him/husband; Respondent no.3/mother-in-law stated that Petitioner deserved
that slap.
3.11. It is alleged that, in 2017, during the gall bladder surgery of Petitioner
neither Respondent no. 2 nor Respondent nos. 3 to 5 helped her.
3.12. It is stated that in 2015-2016 a one BHK house [situated nearby to the
East Azad Nagar property, in the same street] was purchased in the name of
complainant/Petitioner and Respondent no.6 [i.e. Smt. Amita Gandhi] by
Respondent nos. 2 to 5. It is stated that on 24.08.2020 the Petitioner along
with the Respondent no. 2/husband shifted to the said one BHK house and
resided their until 02.10.2021. It is alleged that even then Respondent no.
3/mother-in-law used to instigate her son [Respondent no. 2] against the
Petitioner and her daughter.
3.13. It is stated that since the Petitioner was unable to bear any further
abuses of Respondent nos. 2 to 6 and the aforesaid acts amounted to domestic
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 4 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
violence, therefore, aggrieved by the said acts the Petitioner in November,
2022 filed the complaint under the DV Act.
Impugned orders
4. The Trial Court upon hearing the arguments and after perusing the
complaint on the issue of summoning Respondent nos. 3 to 6, vide impugned
order dated 02.02.2023 held that there was no domestic relationship between
Petitioner and Respondent nos. 3 to 6 and accordingly the Trial Court deleted
them from the array of parties.
5. The Trial Court observed that the Petitioner along with Respondent No.
2 was admittedly residing in a separate property and had established a separate
household. The Trial Court, therefore, concluded that there was no domestic
relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
6. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an appeal under Section 29 of the DV
act against the order dated 02.02.2023 wherein the Appellate Court dismissed
the appeal and affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court in deleting
Respondent nos. 3 to 6 from the array of parties.
Arguments of the Petitioner
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court failed to take into consideration the allegations levelled by
the Petitioner against Respondent nos. 3 to 6 in the complaint since the said
acts complained of constitute domestic violence.
7.1. He stated that Respondent nos. 3 to 6 are covered within the definition
of respondent under section 2 (q) of the DV act.
7.2. He stated that the mere fact that Respondent nos. 3 to 6 had been living
separately from Petitioner since 2013 would not absolve them from the acts
of domestic violence.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 5 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
7.3. He relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Prabha
Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi1 to contend that even if the married couple sets up
a separate residence, then, as well the complaint under DV Act can be filed
against the respondent(s) who were previously residing in the same shared
household.
7.4. He stated that Respondent no. 2 has failed to maintain his daughter as
well due to which she was constrained to file petition under section 20 (3) of
the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which is pending before
court of Family Court-02, Southwest District, Dwarka District Court, Delhi
(‘Family Court’).
7.5. He stated that Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to consider the
specific allegations made against Respondent nos. 3 to 6 in the complaint,
which establishes a domestic relationship with the Petitioner, therefore,
Respondent nos. 3 to 6 ought to have been summoned and not deleted from
the array of the parties.
Arguments of the Respondent nos. 2 to 6
8. Leaned counsel for Respondent nos. 3 to 6 stated that the allegations
made by the Petitioner in the complaint are false and frivolous and in the facts
of this case the Trial Court has rightly deleted Respondent nos. 3 to 6 from
the array of the parties.
8.1. He stated that the Respondent No. 4 [Father-in-law, Late Kishore
Gandhi] had died on 10.02.2024. Further Respondent No. 3 [Mother-in-law,
Mrs. Manju Gandhi] is on death bed. And Respondent No. 5 and 6 [brother-
in-law and his wife] never lived with Petitioner or Respondent No.2 [Sumit
1
(2022) 8 SCC 90 at para 60
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 6 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
Gandhi i.e. husband] and had separate floor with separate kitchen from the
very beginning, therefore, since the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 were
residing separately and established a separate household, thus, the said
Respondent nos. 3 to 6 cannot be said to have a domestic relationship as per
the DV act.
8.2. He stated that there are two concurrent decisions of the Trial Court and
Appellate Court. He stated that no perversity, arbitrariness or abuse of legal
process has been demonstrated by the Petitioner herein for this Court to
exercise its inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
8.3. He stated that presently in compliance of the order dated 08.12.2023
passed by the Family Court, Respondent no. 2/husband, is paying Rs. 20,000/-
per month as ad-interim maintenance, though, the final amount which shall
be payable would not even be Rs.8000/- per month considering the
income/expenditure of Respondent no. 2.
8.4. He stated that Respondent nos. 5 and 6 have no concern with the
Petitioner and Respondent no. 2 and no specific allegations appear in the
complaint against Respondent nos. 5 and 6.
Findings and Analysis
9. This Court has heard the submissions of the parties and perused the
record.
10. In view of the death of Respondent No. 4 on 10.02.2024, the relief
sought in the present petition does not survive qua Respondent No. 4. As a
matter of fact, the Petitioner did not file any application to bring this fact on
record and therefore, this petition even otherwise has been abated qua
Respondent No. 4.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 7 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
11. The Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 10.07.2023 recorded
the following reasons for upholding the decision passed by the Trial Court in
regard to non-summoning and deletion of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6:-
“15. None of the reliefs sought by the appellant is directed against
the respondent no. 3 to 6 except for restraining them from
committing domestic violence and claiming compensation from
them.
16. From the pleadings of appellant it is evident that she is
residing separately from respondents no. 3 to 6 since 2013 and after
2020 she has even shifted to some other place. Relief sought by the
appellant is not in respect of shared household rather appellant has
restricted her claim to an alternate accommodation therefore, in my
humble view case law relied by appellant as settled in “Prabha
Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi” (Supra) is not applicable to facts of case.
…….
18. As held in the above stated judgment, the relatives of the
husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations
unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime is made
out.
19. In the present case, allegations made in the complaint are
mostly directed against husband of appellant. It is evident that since
2013, appellant started residing separately with her husband
(respondent no. 2) and they have established separate household.
No specific allegation is appearing in the complaint against
respondents no. 5 & 6. No complaint has been made by appellant
against respondents no. 3 to 6 during twenty one years of
matrimonial life and since respondents no. 3 to 6 are residing
separately there is no threat to appellant for any kind of domestic
violence from them. Hence, Ld. Trial Court has taken a right view
in deleting respondents no. 3 to 6 from the array of parties.”
(Emphasis supplied)
12. Impugned order(s) have been challenged by the Petitioner on the
ground that there was a domestic relationship in the past between Petitioner
and Respondent nos. 3 to 6, since she resided with them in a shared household
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 8 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
until 2013 and Respondent nos. 3 to 6 used to inflict domestic violence upon
her by provoking husband/Respondent No.2 or by failing to stop him.
13. Before adverting to the facts of the present case it would be imperative
to record the scope of interference under Section 482 CrPC. The scope of the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is to prevent abuse of the process of
Court and to secure the ends of justice. It is trite law that such inherent power
is to be exercised sparingly and not upon a re-appreciation of materials which
have already been considered by the Trial Court and Appellate Court. (Re:
State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy2; Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu
v. State of Andhra Pradesh3 and Bharti Anand v. Sushant Anand and
Others4).
14. A perusal of the complaint dated 11.11.2022 shows that the allegations
of harassment and violence enlisting specific incidents have been made
substantially against Respondent no. 2/husband.
Although the complaint contains allegations of taunts and demands for
gifts against Respondent nos. 3 and 4 (who is since deceased), however, as far
as the living arrangement is concerned it is the admitted case of the
complainant herself that she had established a separate household with
Respondent No.2 and has been residing in a distinct floor in the East Azad
Nagar property since 2013 separate from Respondent nos. 3 to 6. The
Petitioner also admits that in fact after 2020 she has even shifted out to a
separate flat in a distinct building with Respondent no. 2/husband in a separate
household.
2
(2004) 6 SCC 522 [paragraphs 5 to 7]
3
(2020) 17 SCC 595 [paragraphs 12 to 15]
4
2022 SCC OnLine Del 1191 [paragraph 8]
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 9 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
Furthermore, in the complaint there are no specific dates given by the
Petitioner against the alleged acts of Respondent No. 5 [brother-in-law]
neither there is any specific incident pleaded in the complaint against
Respondent No. 6 [the wife of the brother-in-law]. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6
were admittedly living in a separate household on a distinct floor of the East
Azad Nagar property since 2013. Moreover, the Appellate Court observed
that Petitioner was not seeking any relief of residence in the shared household
with either Respondent No. 3 or Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
It is in this factual matrix, after examining the reliefs sought in the
complaint, Appellate Court reached to the conclusion that there is no domestic
relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 3 to 6; and the Trial
Court as well as Appellate Court directed deletion of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
15. It is relevant to note that in the facts of this case, the complaint alleging
domestic violence has been filed after 21 years of marriage and after 9 years
since Petitioner last resided with Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6.
The marriage was solemnized in 2001 and the complaint has been filed
in 2022 (i.e., after 21 years). The earliest date of incident of alleged domestic
violence is of 2001 and the last allegation of incident of alleged domestic
violence against Respondent Nos. 3 is of the year 2020 and for Respondent
No. 5 is of 2017. These allegations in addition to being stale appear to have
been made with an intent to rope in the relatives to exert pressure on
Respondent No. 2/husband to provide Petitioner and her daughter with
maintenance and alternate residence.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 10 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
16. In the complaint there are bald allegations that Respondent nos. 3 to 6
demanded gifts; however, there are no specific averments in the complaint
qua the said demands vis-à-vis the deleted Respondents.
17. It would be relevant to refer to a recent judgment passed by the
Supreme Court in Geddam Jhansi v. State of Telangana 5 wherein the
Supreme Court has observed that Courts must exercise caution and be
judicious in entertaining criminal proceedings arising out of domestic disputes
against relatives and observed that such proceedings should only be
entertained when specific allegations are made with credible material to
support the same. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:
“31. Invoking criminal process is a serious matter with penal consequences
involving coercive measures, which can be permitted only when specific act(s)
which constitute offences punishable under the Penal Code or any other penal
statute are alleged or attributed to the accused and a prima facie case is made out.
It applies with equal force when criminal laws are invoked in domestic disputes.
Criminalising domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible
materials to support the same may have disastrous consequences for the
institution of family, which is built on the premise of love, affection, cordiality
and mutual trust. Institution of family constitutes the core of human society.
Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by
deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are
often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and
emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. For
the aforesaid reason, preservation of family relationship has always been
emphasised upon. Thus, when family relationships are sought to be brought
within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts
should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of
criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting
materials which clearly constitute criminal offences.
32. We have to keep in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes,
emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment
or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members
of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain
mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment, which in our view5
2025 SCC OnLine SC 263Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 11 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts
attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter,
there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not
necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of
criminality.
33. It goes without saying that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in
domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity.
Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not
in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by public at large,
except perhaps by the immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence
by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing
direct evidence may be hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that
domestic violence does not occur. In fact, to deal with this pernicious
phenomenon, stringent statutes like Protection from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what
amounts to domestic violence. Since, violence perpetrated within the domestic
sphere by close relatives is now criminalised entailing serious consequences
on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing with such
cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances
against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations. The purpose and
mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of
paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring
that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or
relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a
sweeping manner.
…….
35. We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domestic
violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as
against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences
and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the
stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the
family. There may be situations where some of the family members or relatives
may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated to the victim, and
may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean
that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances
clearly indicate their involvement and instigation. Hence, implicating all such
relatives without making specific allegations and attributing offending acts
to them and proceeding against them without prima facie evidence that they
were complicit and had actively collaborated with the perpetrators of
domestic violence, would amount to abuse of the process of law.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 12 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
18. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court after examining the allegations
in the complaint against the alleged acts of Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6, who
lived separately from the Petitioner since 2013, have held that the said
allegations fail to justify initiation of criminal proceedings against them.
19. In the complaint, the Petitioner has alleged that Respondent No. 3 used
to persistently level taunts at her since early days of the marriage. In this
regard, it would be relevant to refer the recent decision of Supreme Court in
Kamal & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat6, wherein while quashing an FIR filed
under Section 498-A IPC, the Court held that such allegations of taunts cannot
justify initiation of criminal proceedings against the relatives including
parent-in-laws in a matrimonial discord. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgment read as under:-
“11. What is important, for the purposes of deciding this case, is that
in the FIR there is no specific allegation of demand of dowry by the
accused. Further, the allegation of harassment of the complainant at
the instance of the parents in law is limited to extending taunts and
custody related issues of minor children. However, there is no
disclosure about the nature of those taunts. Admittedly, the second
respondent was married to the first appellant in the year 2005 and for
last several years since before lodging the FIR, the complainant had
been working and staying in rented accommodations at different
places. Besides that, the FIR was lodged on 20.07.2019, just three days
after service of summons of the divorce proceedings initiated by the
first appellant. In these circumstances, we will have to consider
whether the impugned proceedings are vexatious and mala fide,
particularly in the context of a matrimonial dispute where time and
again Courts have been cautioned to be circumspect to obviate
malicious prosecution of family members of the main accused.
12. Even if we assume that there are some allegations of assault and
of physical and mental torture of the complainant, but they are against
the husband. As against the parents in law, the allegations are only of
extending taunts and of not parting with the money for managing6
2025 INSC 504Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 13 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
household expenses. Specific details in respect of those taunts have
not been disclosed. Moreover, a few taunts here and there is a part of
everyday life which for happiness of the family are usually ignored.
Interestingly, as per own allegations in the FIR, the complainant
admits that when she reported those issues to her parents and uncle,
she was counselled to bear patience. In the circumstances, in our
considered view, no case to proceed against the parents in law,
namely, the second and third appellant is made out. In so far as the
first appellant is concerned, there are allegations of physical and
mental torture of the complainant at his behest. Consequently, the case
may proceed qua the first appellant.
13. Before parting, we would like to observe that the High adopted an
extremely pedantic approach while dealing with the quashing petition
of the appellants. No doubt, in ordinary course, while exercising
power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court is not required to test
the correctness of the allegations, but in matters arising from
matrimonial disputes, particularly where the allegations are levelled
after many years of marriage and, that too, after one party initiates
divorce proceeding against the other, the Court must be circumspect
in taking the allegations at their face value. Rather, it must examine,
where allegations of mala fides are there, whether those allegations
have been levelled with an oblique purpose. More so, while
considering the prayer of the relatives of the husband.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Applying the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the order of the
Trial Court and the Appellate Court deleting Respondent No. 3 from the array
of the parties is justified. Moreover, the submission of the Respondent nos. 2
to 6 that Respondent No. 3 is on her death bed has also not been contested
during arguments. Therefore, in these facts, the order of the Trial court and
Appellate Court in declining to initiate criminal proceedings against
Respondent No. 3 does not merit interference.
20. There are no specific incidents of domestic violence against
Respondent No. 6 in the complaint. Respondent No. 6 has been residing in a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 14 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
separate household since 2013. Thus, keeping in view the judgments of the
Supreme Court in Geddam Jhansi (supra) as well as Kamal v. State of
Gujarat (supra), the order of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court deleting
Respondent No. 6 from the array of parties does not merit any interference.
21. The specific incidents qua Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 averred in the
complaint fail to justify initiating criminal proceedings against Respondent
Nos. 3 and 5. So also the unspecific allegations against Respondent No. 6 in
the complaint does not justify initiation of specific proceedings. As observed
by Supreme Court in Geddam Jhansi (supra) the criminal process in
domestic violence disputes ought not to be initiated lightly.
22. The Petitioner while not disputing that she has set up a separate
household with Respondent No. 2 since 2013, has relied upon the judgment
of Supreme Court in Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi (supra) to maintain the
complaint against Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6. Admittedly, in the complaint,
the Petitioner is not seeking enforcement of right of residence in the shared
household with Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6. The Supreme Court in Prabha
Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi (supra) adjudicated upon the identity of the
respondent against whom a complainant can enforce her right to reside in the
shared household. In this context, the Supreme Court held that such a right
can also be enforced by a complainant against a person/respondent with whom
she had resided in the past or a person/respondent against whom she can
enforce the right to live in a shared household.
However, in the subject complaint, Petitioner herein has prayed for a
direction to Respondent nos. 2 to 6 to provide her and her daughter an
‘alternate residence’ in the same neighbourhood; and the said right is being
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 15 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
perused against Respondent No. 2/husband. The Petitioner in this complaint
is not seeking to enforce her right to reside in the shared household with either
Respondent No. 3 or Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
Respondent No. 3 has a separate household. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6
have a separate household. Petitioner along with Respondent No. 2 has a
separate household. However, as noted above the Petitioner is not seeking to
enforce her right to reside in the shared household with either Respondent No.
3 or Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Thus, the reliance placed on the judgment of
Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi (supra) by the Petitioner is misplaced.
23. Pertinently, the Appellate Court after perusing the averments in the
complaint held that since Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are residing
separately, there was no present and continuing threat of domestic violence.
This finding of the Appellate Court is not disputed by the Petitioner during
the course of arguments and in the opinion of this Court, this is a relevant
consideration justifying non-issuance of summons to Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
24. In the facts of this case, the Petitioner has failed to show any infirmity
in the impugned orders. The specific incidents pleaded in the complaint
against Respondent No. 2 has already resulted in initiation of criminal
proceedings against him and the reliefs sought in the complaint are being
pursued against Respondent No. 2/husband and being heard by the Trial
Court. Thus, the impugned orders deleting Respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6
requires no interference and the proceedings qua Respondent No. 4 have
already abated as noted above.
25. In view of the above, the petition is accordingly dismissed along with
the pending applications, if any. No order as to cost.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 16 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
(JUDGE)
JULY 03, 2025/rhc/MS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1916/2025 Page 17 of 17
By:MAMTA RANI
Signing Date:03.07.2025
16:26:47