Wife cannot accuse another woman of domestic violence on the ground that she had illicit relations with her husband and lived in his house- Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court says that a wife cannot prosecute a woman under the Domestic Violence Act on the ground that she had an illicit relationship with her husband and was living in the couple's house.                                                                                       A single-judge bench of Justice Shashikant Mishra was hearing a case In which the petitioner Ravindra Kumar Mishra and another have filed a petition challenging the initiation of proceedings against them under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.The petitioners stated that they do not have any kind of domestic relation with the complainant.                                             As per the case, the complainant had filed a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act in the court of SDJM Sadar, Cuttack in 2021 against the people of her in-laws including the petitioners.In the complaint, the in-laws including the petitioners were accused of physical and mental harassment.The allegation of the complainant was that her husband was having an illicit relationship with the petitioner no.2 and that the petitioner no.1 is the husband of the petitioner no.2.It was alleged that the petitioner no.1 had ignored these illicit relations and had not lodged any objection to the illegal relations of his wife.                                         The court said that if the allegations of illicit relations are true then it may constitute an offense under the IPC but the petitioners cannot be proceeded against under the Domestic Violence Act on this ground.                                                                         During the hearing in the court, the complainant contended that her husband was having an illicit relationship with the petitioner no.2 and both the petitioners were living in her house along with the complainant.so it became a shared house.On this basis, the complainant is entitled to file a complaint under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.                                                      On the contrary, the petitioners contended that they do not have any kind of domestic relationship with the complainant.The petitioners said that according to Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act, no domestic relationship is established between the petitioners and the complainant.                                        Based on the arguments of both the parties and the evidence on record, the Court concluded that the petitioners and the complainant were not related to each other as per the definition of domestic relationship under the Domestic Violence Act.The Court held that domestic relationship has been defined in Section 2(f) of the Act as follows                                     Domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who at any time live or have lived together in a shared household When they are related by way of blood relation, marriage or relationship in the nature of marriage or by adoption or are members of a family living together as a joint family.                                                       The Court, considering the definition of shared household as given in Section 2(s) of the Act, concluded that when there is no domestic relationship between the two parties, mere residence in the same household would not come within the definition of shared household.                             The Court also considered the definition of respondent as given in Section 2(q) of the Act and held that the petitioners cannot be made respondents.                                The Court held that the petitioners is not related to the complainant by consanguinity, marriage or relation in the nature of marriage by adoption or joint family members etc.                                    Allowing the plea of ​​the petitioners, the court ordered quashing of the proceedings pending against them in the trial court.Along with this, the court has also given freedom to the complainant that if she wants, she can take recourse to other legal options for proceeding against the petitioners.