The Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of Domestic Violence Complaint which was filed by a woman against person not living with her in a shared household.

A woman in the case of Kamlesh devi Vs Jaispal had filed a complaint against certain persons, claiming that they are her relatives living in a separate premises, alleging that they were harassing and abusing her daughters. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while considering the revision petition, observed that no evidence is on record to prove that they have been living i9n a shared premises. 

The High Court had observed clearly that as per the word Domestic Violence itself says that to establish some Domestic violence against the persons, it is mandatory to establish the domestic relations between the persons against whom allegations has been put i.e. it is primary mandatory to live together rather than living separately.

In this Special Leave Petition against order dated 16/09/2016 w3hich was passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court filed in supreme court by an aggrieved party. It was earlier dismissed by the District Court and the same was appealed in the appellate court of punjab and Haryana High Court, they also dismissed the appeal which was filed by the aggrieved party. After dismissal of the order passed by the High Court again aggrieved party filed Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India, and after going through the case and listening to the arguments of both parties, the supreme court also upheld the dismissal of Domestic Violence Complaint which was filed by a woman against person not living with her in a shared household.

While passing the order the Supreme Court Bench of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice MR Shah has observed that-

The High Court has rightly found in effect that the ingredients of Domestic violence are wholly absent in this case. The Petitioner and 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.

The Copy of the Order is as follows-

ITEM NO.29 COURT NO.16 SECTION II-B S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)….. Diary No(s).34053/2019 

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-09-2016 in CRLR No.609/2015 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh) 

KAMLESH DEVI          Vs JAIPAL & ORS. 

 (With appln.(s) for c/delay in filing SLP & exemption from filing O.T.) Date : 04-10-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today. 

CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH For Petitioner(s) 

Mr. Anurag Pandey, AOR Ms. Reena Pandey , Adv. Ms. Pushpa Kishore , Adv. For Respondent(s) UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay condoned. This special leave petition is directed against an order dated 16th September, 2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, dismissing Criminal Revision No.609/2015, filed by the petitioner under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By a judgment dated 22nd October, 2012 the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) dismissed a complaint filed by the WWW.LIVELAW.IN 2 petitioner under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. An appeal filed by the petitioner against the said judgment and order has been dismissed. The revision application filed by the petitioner under Section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the appellate order of the Sessions Judge and the judgment and order of the Judicial Magistrate (First Class) has been dismissed by the order impugned in the special leave petition. 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. The special leave petition is dismissed. Pending applications shall stand disposed of. (Beena Jolly) (Sarita Purohit) Branch Officer AR-cum-PS 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *