DV Act applies to past domestic relationships too: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently observed that a 'domestic relationship' to which the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) applies would also include such relationships between persons who may have lived together in a shared household in the past. .Justice Sanjay Dhar made the observation while refusing to drop domestic violence charges against the parents in-law of a woman (complainant). The in-laws had argued that the DV case was not maintainable since they did not share a domestic relationship with the complainant-woman/ daughter-in-law after she left the matrimonial house in 2016. The Court, however, rejected this argument after noting that it was sufficient that the in-laws had shared a domestic relationship with their estranged daughter-in-law in the past. "The definition (of 'domestic violence' under the DV Act) makes it clear that ‘domestic relationship’ would include even a relationship between two persons who may have lived . Therefore, even if the respondent has left the shared household in the year 2016, but the fact of the matter remains that prior to that, she has admittedly lived in a shared household with the petitioners. Thus, there was a domestic relationship between the parties," the Court said. .The case concerned a complaint filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws on allegations that she was taunted and beaten up for not bringing enough dowry after her marriage in 2015. This was the second time that the woman had filed such a complaint. The first complaint was earlier withdrawn in 2021. After the fresh complaint was filed, the charges against the woman's sister-in-law were eventually dropped by a Jammu court. However, similar relief was not extended to the woman's parents-in-law (petitioners), prompting them to eventually approach the High Court. .The petitioners argued that the complainant (daughter-in-law) could not have file a second complaint on the same issue, after having withdrawn her earlier complaint in 2021. The argument, however, failed to impress the Court. "Procedure pertaining to res judicata (a principle to restrain courts from re-examining issues that are already settled), or even principles in the nature of res judicata, can not be made applicable to the proceedings under the DV Act, particularly in a case where the aggrieved person has explained the circumstances under which she has filed the second petition after withdrawal of the earlier petition," it said. The petitioners further argued that they no longer shared a domestic relationship with the complainant, which was also rejected by the Court on November 8. Accordingly, it dismissed the plea filed by the parents-in-law (petitioners). .Advocate Amandeep Singh appeared for the petitioners.Advocate Himani Uppal appeared for the complainant. .[Read Order]