Delhi High Court Upholds Non-Issuance Of Summons In Domestic Violence Complaint
The Delhi Excessive Courtroom has upheld an order deleting the in-laws of a lady from the array of events in an alleged case of home violence after noting that they have been residing in a separate family and the grievance was filed after 21 years of marriage.
The Petitioner girl had approached the Excessive Courtroom difficult the order upholding the choice handed by the Trial Courtroom in regard to the non-summoning of her in-laws.
The Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora stated, “The wedding was solemnized in 2001 and the grievance has been filed in 2022 (i.e., after 21 years). The earliest date of incident of alleged home violence is of 2001 and the final allegation of incident of alleged home violence in opposition to Respondent Nos. 3 is of the 12 months 2020 and for Respondent No. 5 is of 2017. These allegations along with being stale seem to have been made with an intent to rope within the relations to exert strain on Respondent No. 2/husband to offer Petitioner and her daughter with upkeep and alternate residence”, it stated.
“Respondent No. 3 has a separate family. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have a separate family. Petitioner together with Respondent No. 2 has a separate family. Nevertheless, as famous above the Petitioner will not be in search of to implement her proper to reside within the shared family with both Respondent No. 3 or Respondent Nos. 5 and 6”, it added.
Advocate L.M. Grover represented the Petitioner, whereas ASC Yasir Rauf Ansari represented the Respondents.
Factual Background
The Petitioner had filed an utility/grievance below part 12 of the DV Act earlier than the Trial Courtroom in opposition to her husband, parents-in-law and her brother-in-law, in addition to his spouse (respondents). It was alleged that the Petitioner was subjected to varied sorts of cruelties by the Respondents. The respondents allegedly commented on her bodily look, verbally abused her and likewise confirmed resentment on the beginning of her daughter. The petitioner thus filed the grievance below the DV Act.
The Trial Courtroom held that there was no home relationship between the Petitioner and the in-laws as she, alongside together with her husband (Respondent 2), have been residing in separate property and had established a separate family. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an enchantment below Part 29 of the DV Act, however the identical was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Excessive Courtroom.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the information of the case, the Bench discovered that the grievance alleging home violence had been filed after 21 years of marriage and after 9 years for the reason that Petitioner final resided together with her in-laws. It was additionally seen that within the grievance, there have been bald allegations that the Respondents demanded presents; nevertheless, there have been no particular averments within the grievance qua the stated calls for vis-à-vis the deleted Respondents.
It was additional seen that the Appellate Courtroom held that for the reason that Petitioner and in-laws have been residing individually, there was no current and persevering with risk of home violence. This discovering of the Appellate Courtroom was not disputed by the Petitioner throughout the course of the arguments. As per the Bench, this was a related consideration justifying the non-issuance of summons to the in-laws.
“The precise incidents pleaded within the grievance in opposition to Respondent No. 2 has already resulted in initiation of legal proceedings in opposition to him and the reliefs sought within the grievance are being pursued in opposition to Respondent No. 2/husband and being heard by the Trial Courtroom. 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 famous above”, it held.
Thus, in gentle of such information and circumstances, the Bench dismissed the Petition.
Trigger Title: X v. State (NCT) of Delhi & Ors. (Impartial Quotation: 2025: DHC:5226)
Look
Petitioner: Advocate L.M. Grover
Respondents: ASC Yasir Rauf Ansari, Advocates Alok Sharma, Jyotsana Pandit, SI Awant, Advocate Roshan Lal Saini
