No Relatives who does not come under the defination of sec.2(f) Act - can be made as respondents in DVC case -No cognizance be taken ? -only allegations made against the relatives that under the influence of his parents and others and being instigated by them he had continued the harassment and subjected the complainant to both mental and physical torture. - which are emphasised supra, are omnibus and vague allegations without any details.- DVC against petitioner quashed - 2015 Telangana MSKLAWREPORTS 2 (f) domestic relationship means 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

2 (f)   domestic relationship means 
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

Whether the petitioners have made out valid and
sufficient grounds for quashing the proceedings
against them in D.V. Case No.11 of 2012 on the file of
learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at
Hayathnagar, Hyderabad?

No Relatives who does not come under the defination of sec.2(f) Act, can be made as respondents in  DVC case ?

2 (f)   domestic relationship means 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

The petitioners do not come within the definition of domestic
relationship as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act.  
They are not related by
consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of
marriage.  
They are also not the family members living together as joint
family.  
The contents of the petition of the 2nd respondent do not disclose
any acts of so called domestic violence committed by the petitioners
herein.  

 Apart from the
allegations against the husband, parents-in-law and the brother-in-law the
only allegations made against the relatives are as follows: 
However, being
under the influence of his parents and others and being instigated by them
he had continued the harassment and subjected the complainant to both 
mental and physical torture.  
Thus, suppressing the said fact, he had
married the 2nd respondent and had continued the torture for brining
dowry being instigated by his parents and relatives, whose names are
mentioned at the foot of said complaint.   
The said averments are omnibus in nature.  
In one of the said averments the words employed are -
under the influence of his parents and others and being instigated by
them.  
Who are the said others mentioned in the above statement is not
stated in the petition. 
The averments, which are
emphasised supra, are omnibus and vague allegations without any details.

Therefore, even on a plain consideration of all the uncontroverted
averments made in the petition of the 2nd respondent, it is obvious that the
same do not disclose a prima facie case against the present petitioners.  
On
this ground alone, the DV Case against the petitioners is liable to be
quashed. 

Whether the Magistrate ought not to have taken the case on file against the present
petitioners for the reason that the petitioners have no domestic
relationship and that they have never shared the household or lived
together in a shared household with the 2nd respondent and her husband?

it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions.
A person can be
arraigned as a respondent in a DV case provided he is or has been in a
domestic relationship with the aggrieved person.   
The proviso to Section
2(q) says that an aggrieved wife may also file a complaint against the relation of a husband.  

A plain reading of the said definition would make it
manifest that any person who can be arraigned as a respondent must be a 
person who is or has been in domestic relationship with the aggrieved
person and must have subjected the aggrieved person to any act of
domestic violence.   

Unless the said requirements are fulfilled a person cannot be arraigned as a respondent in a DV Case. 

 Coming to the aspect of
domestic relationship, the domestic relationship means a relationship
between two persons who either are living together or had 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.
The definition of shared household is already extracted supra.

Therefore, in the well-considered view of this Court, for
a person to be made a respondent in a DV case filed by an aggrieved
woman, such respondent, must have a domestic relationship with the 
aggrieved person and must have been living or must have lived together
in a shared household along with the aggrieved person 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.  
Therefore, when 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 and who has/had no domestic relationship 
cannot be made a respondent to a case filed by the woman under the 
provisions of the Act.
  To put it in other words, in order to make a person as a
respondent in a DV case filed under section 12 of the Act, there must be a
domestic relationship either in present or in the past between the
aggrieved person and the respondent.  In any case the domestic
relationship must be in existence at the relevant time when aggrieved
person has been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the
respondent. 
 It is noticeable from the provisions that a domestic
relationship arises between the aggrieved person and another in case
when either they are living together or have at any point of time lived
together in a shared house hold and 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.
The aggrieved person and the respondent need not be living together in a
shared household at the time of the filing of the case/petition and it would
be sufficient if they had lived together at any point of time in the past,
when the alleged acts/omissions/conduct complained of had taken place. 

  Reverting to the facts of the case, all the petitioners are
residents of Prakasam District whereas the 2nd respondent is a resident of
Hyderabad.  Her husband, parents in law and brother-in-law are stated to
be residents of Secunderabad. 
 There is no averment in the petition of the
2nd respondent and no material is also placed on record to show that the
petitioners are having or had any domestic relationship with the 2nd
respondent.  It is not pleaded or shown by any material brought on record
that the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are living together or had lived
together at any point of time in a shared household and are having or had
a domestic relationship with the 2nd respondent. 
 Further, after the
proceedings in Crime No.204 of 2010 were quashed by this Court, by
orders dated 04.10.2012, the present DV case was filed by the 2nd
respondent.  
The law is well settled that in a matrimonial case like the
present case, when only a casual reference is made to the relatives of the
husband and there is absence of specific allegations of active involvement
in the matter and when the allegations made are omnibus and vague in
nature and when the un-controverted allegations made in the
complaint/DV case do not disclose even a prima facie case, the continuation
of the proceedings against such relatives of the husband would be an
abuse of judicial process.  
The above view of this Court finds support from
the ratio in the decision in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P .  Therefore, this
case is an evidently fit case to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of
process of court and secure the ends of justice. - 2015 Telangana msklawreports