Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by husband (petitioner 1) and his parents (petitioner 2 and 3) seeking the quashing of a domestic violence complaint initiated by respondent was dismissed. Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that the petitioners failed to establish any valid grounds for quashing the complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
The Court ruled that the complaint was maintainable in Delhi, as the respondent had permanent and temporary residence in the city. It further found that the allegations of domestic violence warranted adjudication on merits before the competent Magistrate.
The marriage between petitioner 1 and respondent was solemnized on 26-11-2011, as per Hindu customs and rites. After spending a brief period together in their matrimonial home in Allahabad, the couple began residing separately due to their respective postings in the armed forces. Petitioner 1 was serving in the Indian Air Force and was stationed in Agra, while the Respondent was posted as a Senior Air Traffic Control Officer in Bathinda. The marriage was strained, and the couple had been living separately since November 2015. Subsequently, petitioner 1 initiated divorce proceedings in the Family Court at Allahabad in 2016. In response, the respondent filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in 2017 before the Family Court at Rohini, Delhi.
The petitioners sought the quashing of the DV Complaint on multiple grounds. Firstly, they contended that the complaint was filed in Delhi despite the couple never having resided together in the city, rendering it beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi courts. Secondly, they argued that the allegations made in the complaint were vague, unsubstantiated, and intended to harass them. They claimed that the Respondent had falsely implicated petitioner 2 and 3 (parents of petitioner 1) despite them not being involved in the alleged acts of domestic violence. Thirdly, the petitioners asserted that the complaint was financially motivated, pointing out that the respondent had independent means of income, assets worth Rs. 51 lakhs, and no justifiable grounds to claim maintenance.
The petitioners further argued that the respondent had been provided with financial support until March 2016, and that she had, at one point, refused to accept money from petitioner 1, as corroborated by audio recordings. They also highlighted contradictions in the reliefs sought by the respondent, arguing that while she claimed to want to live with petitioner 1, she was simultaneously seeking a restraint order against him. Additionally, they claimed that there was no evidence of domestic violence, and that the allegations regarding infidelity were baseless.
The respondent opposed the petition, asserting that it was a mere attempt to evade legal liability. She stated that she had been deserted by the petitioner and was raising their minor child alone. She maintained that her parental home in Delhi was her permanent residence, and after separation, she had temporarily stayed there before her postings. Thus, she argued, her complaint was validly filed in Delhi under Section 27 of the DV Act, which allows a petition to be filed where the aggrieved person “permanently or temporarily resides.”
The respondent further alleged that she had been subjected to mental, emotional, and economic abuse. She claimed that her in-laws pressured her into investing her own money into purchasing property, which was now under their control. She also accused them of dowry-related harassment, verbal abuse, and threatening behavior. She refuted the claim that petitioner 1 had been financially supporting her and their daughter, asserting that she had been left to fend for herself without any assistance.
The Court first addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction and held that the complaint was maintainable in Delhi. It noted that under Section 27(1) of the DV Act, an aggrieved person can file a complaint where they “permanently or temporarily reside.” Since the Respondent had stayed in Delhi after separation and had a permanent residence at her parental home, the Court ruled that the Delhi courts had jurisdiction. The Court also cited Supreme Court precedents holding that a woman who finds shelter at her parental home after facing domestic violence can file a complaint from that location.
On the question of whether the complaint was vague and unsubstantiated, the Court observed that the Respondent had made specific allegations of domestic violence, economic abuse, and coercion. The Court reiterated that under Section 3 of the DV Act, domestic violence includes not just physical harm but also emotional, verbal, and economic abuse. It also acknowledged that the respondent had sought reliefs including maintenance, protection, residence orders, and compensation, all of which required adjudication on merits rather than dismissal at the threshold stage.
The Court further noted that even if the petitioners’ claim that no domestic violence had occurred was accepted, the respondent still had a statutory right to reside in the shared household under Section 17 of the DV Act. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi, (2022) 8 SCC 90 to hold that a woman’s right to residence exists independently of any allegations of violence.
The Court concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish any grounds for quashing the complaint and ruled that the respondent’s allegations were specific and merited adjudication by the Magistrate. It also held that there was no bar of limitation for filing a complaint under the DV Act, and that the proceedings were not an abuse of process. The Court dismissed the petition, leaving it open for the Magistrate to decide the matter on merits.
[Prabhakar Bhatt v. Annu Lamba, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1231, decided on 27-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advocate for appellants;
Mr. Akshay Chowdhary & Ms. Sonali Madaan, Advocates. Respondent;
