Smt. Pooja vs Smt. Matura Bai

-1- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201187 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN:

1. SMT. POOJA W/O MANOJKUMAR HILALPURE, (D/O BABURAO BORALE), AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O BIDAR NOW RESIDING AT SHIVASHANT NAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL.

2. BABURAO S/O CHANDRAPPA BORALE, AGE: 63 YEARS OCC: RETD. BANK EMPLOYEE, R/O HUMNABAD, NOW RESIDING AT SHIVASHANT NAGAR, KOPPAL TQ: DIST: KOPPAL.

Digitally signed by 3. SMT. BALIKA W/O BABURAO BORALE, NIJAMUDDIN AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, JAMKHANDI Location: HIGH R/O HUMNABAD, NOW RESIDING AT SHIVASHANT COURT OF KARNATAKA NAGAR KOPPAL, TQ: DIST: KOPPAL.

4. NITIN S/O BABURAO BORALE, AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: PRIVATE JOB R/O HUMNABAD, NOW RESIDING AT BENGALORE.

5. NIKHIL S/O BABURAO BORALE, AGE: 35 YEARS OCCU: PRIVATE JOB R/O HUMNABAD, NOW RESIDING AT BENGALORE.

6. SULEKHABAI D/O BASAPPA ZILLE, AGE: 75 YEARS OCC: NIL R/O SADASHIVA NAGAR KALABURGI. -2- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

7. VENKATRAO S/O BASAPPA ZILLE AGE: 54 YEARS OCCU: BSNL EMPLOYEE, R/O SADASHIVNAGAR KALABURGI.

8. SUREKHA W/O VENKATROA ZILLE, AGE: 50 YEARS OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, R/O SADASHIVA NAGAR KALABURGI.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. CHANDRAKALA AND SRI B. C. JAKA, ADVOCATES)

AND:

SMT MATURA BAI W/O MOHANRAO HILALPURE, AGED ABOUT:- 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD R/O MEHAKAR VILLAGE, BHALKI TQ: DIST: BIDAR-585328. ...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL MISCE. NO.466/2025, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C BHALKI REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE COMMISSION OF ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION D.V.ACT,2005.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.10.2025 COMING ON FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)

This captioned petition is by the daughter-in-law, her

parents and siblings seeking quashing of the proceedings

instituted by respondent/mother-in-law against the

daughter-in-law and her family members in

Crl.Misc.No.466/2025.

2. Facts leading to the case are as under:

The respondent, who is the mother-in-law of

petitioner No.1, has instituted proceedings under Section

12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act, 2005") seeking reliefs

contemplated under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the

Act, 2005. In the complaint, the respondent asserts that

petitioner No.1 is the legally wedded wife of her son,

Manojkumar, and that their marriage was solemnized on

19.02.2017 in accordance with customs and rituals -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

observed in their community. It is further averred that the

couple was blessed with a daughter on 03.06.2018.

3. The respondent alleges that petitioner No.1, in

collusion with certain anti-social elements, lodged a

criminal complaint before the Koppal Women Police Station

by furnishing a false address. Based on the said complaint,

a case in Crime No.10/2019 came to be registered for the

offences punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian

Penal Code against the respondent, her son and her

husband. The respondent asserts that her son was

arrested and remained in judicial custody for four days. It

is contended that neither she nor her husband were aware

of the filing of the said complaint, and upon learning of the

same, they approached petitioner No.1 seeking an

explanation. According to the respondent, petitioner No.1

along with petitioner Nos.2 to 8 abused them in filthy

language and curtly informed them to pursue their

remedies in Court. -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

4. The respondent further contends that, left with

no option, her son Manojkumar initiated matrimonial

proceedings in M.C.No.144/2019 seeking dissolution of

marriage. After full-fledged adjudication, the Family Court

rejected the petition for divorce and instead passed a

decree for restitution of conjugal rights directing petitioner

No.1 to rejoin the marital home within one month. The

respondent alleges that despite the decree attaining

finality, petitioner No.1 failed to comply with the said

order. It is also alleged that petitioner No.1 has instituted

multiple proceedings against the son of respondent no. 2

and her family members, including Crl.Misc.No.268/2020

seeking maintenance, Misc.No.1/2023 seeking an order

restraining a second marriage, O.S.No.113/2019 seeking

partition, and Misc.No.168/2025 for recovery of arrears of

maintenance. The respondent adds that some of these

proceedings were subsequently withdrawn by petitioner

No.1, indicating malafide intent and harassment. -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

5. According to the respondent, petitioner No.1

rejoined the marital home on 08.03.2025 pursuant to the

decree for restitution passed by the Family Court, but

shortly thereafter, on 03.04.2025, she picked up a quarrel

with the respondent and Manojkumar. It is alleged that

soon thereafter, petitioner Nos.2 to 8 arrived at Mehkar

village, abused the respondent in filthy language,

quarreled with her, and forcibly took petitioner No.1 back

to their parental home. The respondent also alleges that

petitioner No.1 has subsequently instituted another

proceeding in Crl.Misc.No.384/2025 solely to harass her

and her family. By referring to these incidents, the

respondent asserts that she has suffered humiliation,

mental cruelty, physical agony and emotional distress at

the hands of petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 to 8. She

therefore seeks protection orders under Section 18 of the

Act, 2005 restraining the petitioners from committing acts

of domestic violence against her. -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners,

reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contends

that the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Act,

2005 are nothing but a counterblast to the matrimonial

and criminal litigations initiated earlier by petitioner No.1.

By placing reliance on Sections 2(f) and 2(s) of the Act,

2005, it is submitted that the complaint is not

maintainable as against petitioner Nos.2 to 8 as they do

not fall within the ambit of "domestic relationship" or

"shared household" as defined under the Act. It is

contended that petitioner Nos.2 to 8 have never resided

with the respondent at any point of time, and merely

being related to petitioner No.1 cannot render them liable

in a proceeding under Section 12. Reliance is placed on

the following decisions:

i. Mrs. Zeba Mohasin Pathan @ Zeba Easak

Pathan and Others vs. State of Maharashtra

Writ petition no. 5185/2018 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

ii. Sunny Mathew vs. State of Kerala 2024 SCC

OnLine Ker 7182

7. It is further submitted by the petitioners'

counsel that the respondent/mother-in-law has misused

the provisions of the Act, 2005 by arraying not only

petitioner No.1 but also her extended family members who

never lived with the respondent. It is also argued that the

materials on record, including the pleadings in the

matrimonial cases, clearly demonstrate that petitioner

No.1 and her husband have been living separately from

the respondent since 2018, and therefore the existence of

a shared household or domestic relationship is absent. It is

urged that the complaint is a retaliatory measure intended

to harass the petitioners, and if permitted to continue,

would amount to gross abuse of process of law.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

places reliance on the judgment of the Allahabad High

Court in Smt. Garima and Others vs. State of U.P. and

Another 2025:AHC-LKO:18831 to contend that a -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

mother-in-law is not precluded from maintaining an

application under the Act, 2005. It is argued that the Act is

a piece of beneficial legislation intended to protect women

from domestic violence, and its remedies are available not

only to wives or daughters-in-law but to any woman who

alleges domestic violence within the domestic relationship.

The learned counsel submits that petitioner Nos.2 to 8

have played an active role in instigating petitioner No.1,

thereby aggravating the strained relationship between the

respondent and her son. Hence, according to the

respondent, her application against petitioner Nos.2 to 8 is

maintainable.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides

and having meticulously examined the pleadings and

documents available on record, the following points arise

for consideration:

1. Whether the respondent/mother-in-law has made out a prima facie case to maintain an application under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 against petitioner No.1/daughter-in-law in the absence of - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

specific pleadings and cogent materials demonstrating that the parties shared a common household and were in a domestic relationship based on such shared household?

2. Whether the proceedings initiated by the respondent under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 are maintainable as against petitioner Nos.2 to 8, who are relatives of petitioner No.1 and who admittedly never resided with the respondent, thereby lacking the prerequisite of a domestic relationship under the Act, 2005?

Finding on points:

10. The Protection of Women from Domestic

Violence Act, 2005 is a remedial and beneficial legislation

enacted with the avowed objective of providing more

effective protection to the constitutional and legal rights of

women who are subjected to violence within the domestic

sphere. The Statement of Objects and Reasons expressly

records that the Act aims to protect women from violence

"of any kind occurring within the family" and to secure

their right to a life of dignity guaranteed under Articles 14,

15 and 21 of the Constitution. The Act primarily provides - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

civil remedies for enforcement of rights relating to

residence, protection, monetary reliefs, maintenance,

custody of children and compensation. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15

SCC 755, emphasised that the Act,2005 is intended to

provide a civil law remedy to protect women from abusive

relationships and to prevent the recurrence of domestic

violence in society. Again, in Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi

v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 INSC 734, the Hon'ble Apex Court

reiterated that the legislation was enacted to combat the

pervasive social menace of domestic violence and to

safeguard women who are victims of such violence in any

form. Similarly, the Madras High Court in Vandhana v. T.

Srikanth, 2007 SCC OnLine Mad 553, noted that the

Act,2005 incorporates and gives effect to Recommendation

No. 12 of the CEDAW Committee (1989), which India

ratified in June 1993. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in

Ishpal Singh Kahai v. Ramanjeet Kaur, 2011 SCC

OnLine Bom 412, stressed that the Act aims to extend - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

statutory protection to women in the domestic sphere

irrespective of proprietary rights, ensuring their security

and preventing repeated acts of violence. Thus, the

Act,2005 constitutes a progressive step in strengthening

the legal framework intended to shield women from

domestic abuse and secure their fundamental dignity.

11. Under Section 2(a) of the Act, an "aggrieved

person" includes any woman who is, or has been, in a

domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges that

she has been subjected to domestic violence. The Act,

under Section 2(f), defines "domestic relationship" broadly

as a relationship between persons who live or have at any

point of time lived together in a shared household and are

related by consanguinity, marriage, or through

relationships in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as

family members living together in a joint family. The

expression "respondent", originally restricted to an "adult

male person" under Section 2(q), has undergone

significant evolutionary interpretation. In Hiral P. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, AIR 2016

SC 4774, the Hon'ble Supreme Court struck down the

words "adult male person" as being contrary to the object

of the legislation, thereby widening the scope of

"respondent" to include any person, irrespective of gender,

against whom the aggrieved woman seeks relief.

12. The definition of "shared household" in Section

2(s) encompasses any household where the aggrieved

woman lives or has lived in a domestic relationship,

irrespective of ownership or title, and includes property

belonging to the joint family of which the respondent is a

member. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satish Chandra

Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, AIR 2020 SC 5397, overruled

the restrictive interpretation in S.R. Batra v. Tarun

Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169, and held that even where the

shared household belongs exclusively to the husband or

any relative of the husband, it constitutes a "shared

household" if the aggrieved woman has lived therein in a

domestic relationship. Consequently, the statutory and - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

judicial framework jointly emphasis that sisters, widows,

mothers, daughters, or women in live-in relationships who

have resided in a shared household are all entitled to

invoke the protective umbrella of the Act.

13. In the present case, it is an admitted position

on record that petitioner No.1 is the daughter-in-law of the

respondent, whereas petitioner Nos.2 to 8 are her parents,

siblings and other relatives who have no matrimonial or

domestic nexus with the respondent. The materials placed

on record clearly indicate that the respondent continues to

reside with her husband at the matrimonial home, while

petitioner No.1, owing to longstanding marital discord with

her husband Manojkumar, has been living separately and

is admittedly not residing either with the respondent or

with her husband.

14. It would be crucial to refer to respondent's own

averments in the Section 12 application, the relevant

portion of which is extracted below; - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

"3. That, on the advise of the elders of society and family well wishers of respondent No. 1 and parents of Manojkumar, the respondent No. 1 has join the company of Manojkumar and started residing at Hyderabad for the further education of respondent No. 1 and the entire expenses of higher education of respondent No. 1 has been incurred by Manojkumar and his parents. Further the respondent No. 1 is again started quarreling with the Manojkumar and his parents and left the company of Manojkumar and started to resided with her parents.

4. That, on 03-06-2018 the baby girl born to the respondent No. 1 through Manojkumar on that occasion the parents of Manojkumar had performed the Cradle ceremony of Manvitha by expending huge amount of money, thereafter Manojkumar has been to Goa for P.hd. at Birla Institute of Technology at that time the parents of the Manojkumar requested to the respondent No. 1 to come with them - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

at Bidar, but the respondent o. flatly denied to come with the parents of Manojkumar and quarrelling with them and voluntarily residing at her parent house at Humnabad."

6. ...................The respondent No. 1 rejoined the company of Manjokumar and family with the complainant on 28-03- 2025 as per the direction of Hon'ble Family Court Koppal. Suddenly on 03-04- 2025 the respondent No. 1 started the quarreling with the parents of the Manojkumar and the respondent No. 2 to 8 come to the village Mehkar to take back the respondent No. 1, at that time the all respondents have quarreled with the complainant and abused in filthy language, for that the complainant has called to the Police on 112 as because there was order of family court Koppal and requested the parents of the respondent not to take back her, but they are forcibly take back her, so the concerned Police Mehkar has taken undertaking letter from the respondent - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

No. 1 and thereafter the respondent No. 1 and her parents left the village Mehkar. Thereafter immediately the respondent No. 1 filed a Criminal Misc Case under D.V. Act. in Criminal Misc No. 384/2025 before the Hon'ble Prl. JMFC Court at Koppal to harsh the complainant and her family members, these case are constitute to domestic violence the complainant and her family members.

(Emphasis supplied)

15. It is evident that petitioner No.1 never lived

with the respondent/mother-in-law in a shared household

so as to create a domestic relationship contemplated

under Sections 2(a) and 2(f) of the Act,2005. The

respondent categorically states that petitioner No.1

resided with her husband at Hyderabad for pursuing

higher education, and thereafter, due to marital discord,

voluntarily left the company of her husband and began

residing with her parents at Humnabad. Even in 2018,

when the respondent requested her to reside with them in - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

Bidar, petitioner No.1 unequivocally declined and

continued to reside with her parents. The pleadings further

reveal that although a decree for restitution of conjugal

rights was passed on 19.04.2022, petitioner No.1 rejoined

her husband only on 28.03.2025 and stayed for a brief

period before disagreements arose on 03.04.2025. It is

only thereafter, and admittedly at the instance of marital

strife, that petitioner Nos.2 to 8 allegedly came to Mehkar

to take petitioner No.1 back. These factual assertions

unequivocally establish that petitioner No.1 was neither

residing with the respondent nor sharing a household with

her at any relevant point in time; nor have petitioner

Nos.2 to 8 ever resided with the respondent or borne any

domestic relationship with her. The statutory requirement

of cohabitation or shared household which is indispensable

for maintaining a petition under Section 12 is therefore

wholly absent.

16. On the contrary, the Section 12 petition

discloses that the son of the respondent resides separately - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

from both petitioner No.1 and the respondent, further

negating any allegation of domestic violence occurring

"within the family" as envisaged by the Act. The

respondent's grievance is predicated only on occasional

quarrels and the fact that petitioner Nos.2 to 8 later

accompanied petitioner No.1, which by no stretch meets

the legal threshold under Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(q) and

2(s). Seen in the context of multiple prior legal

proceedings initiated by petitioner No.1 such as the

Section 498-A complaint, maintenance proceedings, and

the restitution litigation, the present action under Section

12 is nothing but a retaliatory measure intended to

counteract those proceedings. The Protection of Women

from Domestic Violence Act is a remedial legislation

enacted to shield women from violence within a domestic

setting; it cannot be used inversely by a mother-in-law to

initiate proceedings against a daughter-in-law living

separately, much less against her parents, siblings or

relatives who have no domestic nexus with the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

respondent. The absence of foundational pleadings,

coupled with the respondent's own admissions, leaves no

doubt that the proceedings in Criminal Misc. No. 466/2025

are wholly untenable and constitute an abuse of the

process of law.

17. In such circumstances, the foundational

requirement of a domestic relationship as defined under

Section 2(f) of the Act, namely, that the aggrieved person

and the respondent must have lived together in a shared

household, is conspicuously absent. The statutory scheme

of the Act, 2005 is intended to protect women who are

victims of domestic violence within the domestic sphere,

and the legislative definition of "aggrieved person" under

Section 2(a) predicates the existence of a subsisting or

past domestic relationship within a shared household.

Therefore, when the daughter-in-law is not residing with

the respondent and has never lived together with

petitioner Nos.2 to 8 at any point of time, the respondent

cannot invoke Section 12 of the Act to seek a protection - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

order under Section 18 prohibiting alienation of properties

belonging to her family, nor can she claim compensation

by alleging physical or mental trauma against persons with

whom she shares no domestic relationship.

18. The Act, 2005 does not contemplate civil

remedies being sought by a mother-in-law against a

daughter-in-law living separately, much less against the

daughter-in-law's parents or siblings who are complete

strangers to the shared household. The mere existence of

strained matrimonial relations between petitioner No.1 and

her husband cannot, by itself, confer jurisdiction under the

Act, 2005 in favour of the respondent, particularly when

the son himself is residing away from the respondent due

to employment and the pleadings do not demonstrate any

act of domestic violence committed within the domestic

framework contemplated by the Act. Consequently, the

application filed by the respondent under Section 12 of the

Act, 2005 suffers from a fundamental lack of

maintainability as the essential ingredients of "aggrieved - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

person," "respondent," and "shared household" are neither

pleaded nor established.

19. A careful examination of the pleadings and

materials on record clearly demonstrates that the reliefs

sought by the respondent in the application under Section

12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 are wholly misconceived and legally

unsustainable insofar as they pertain to petitioner Nos.2 to

8, who are the parents, siblings and relatives of petitioner

No.1/daughter-in-law. The Act, under Section 2(a), limits

the status of an "aggrieved person" to a woman who is, or

has been, in a domestic relationship with the

"respondent," while Section 2(f) defines a "domestic

relationship" as one requiring that the parties must have

lived together at any point of time in a shared household.

Likewise, Section 2(q), after the authoritative

interpretation in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum

Narottamdas Harsora (supra), expands the expression

"respondent" to include any person against whom relief is - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

sought, but still subject to the condition that such person

must have been in a domestic relationship with the

aggrieved woman. In the present case, petitioner Nos.2 to

8 are admittedly strangers to the shared household of the

respondent; they have never resided with the respondent

nor shared any domestic arrangement that would bring

them within the statutory ambit of a domestic relationship.

The Act, 2005 does not permit roping in of non-resident

relatives merely because they are related to the daughter-

in-law; nor does it enable the respondent to seek

sweeping protection orders, prohibitory directions against

alienation of her family properties, or compensation from

persons who have no domestic nexus or proximity

contemplated under the Act.

20. The petition, when viewed in the backdrop of

the admitted facts, unmistakably reveals its retaliatory

character. The record shows that petitioner

No.1/daughter-in-law has instituted multiple proceedings

against the respondent's son and his family including a - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

criminal complaint under Section 498-A of IPC, a

maintenance petition, matrimonial litigation, and other

miscellaneous proceedings arising from marital discord

with her husband. It is in this context that the respondent,

instead of restricting her grievance, has chosen to invoke

proceedings under the Act, 2005 against not only the

daughter-in-law but also her entire parental family, which

on the face of it indicates an attempt to pressurize or

counteract the legal steps initiated by petitioner No.1. The

Act, 2005, being a beneficial statute enacted to protect

women from domestic violence within the domestic

sphere, cannot be used as a tool for settling personal

scores or for dragging into litigation persons with whom no

domestic relationship exists under Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(q)

and 2(s). Consequently, the reliefs sought against

petitioner Nos.2 to 8 are fundamentally outside the

framework of the Act, rendering the petition wholly

untenable and an abuse of the legal process. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

21. In light of the statutory scheme of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

and the judicial pronouncements governing its

interpretation, it becomes abundantly clear that the

present proceedings are fundamentally misconceived.

Applying these well-settled principles to the facts of the

present case, the respondent/mother-in-law cannot be

treated as an "aggrieved person" nor can petitioner Nos.2

to 8 be treated as "respondents" within the meaning of the

Act.

22. The admitted factual position is that the

respondent resides separately with her husband in her

matrimonial home, while her son/husband of petitioner

No.1, is living away from both the respondent and

petitioner No.1. The records further establish that due to

marital discord, petitioner No.1 has been living separately

and has not resided with the respondent for several years.

These circumstances unmistakably establish that there is

no shared household, no cohabitation, and no domestic - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

relationship between the respondent and petitioner No.1,

and certainly none with petitioner Nos.2 to 8, who are

merely her parental relatives. In the absence of the

foundational elements of a domestic relationship, the

respondent's attempt to invoke Section 12 of the Act,2005

to seek protection orders, prohibitory directions against

alienation of her family properties, and compensation from

the petitioners falls squarely outside the statutory

framework.

23. As consistently held in the judgments cited

above, the Act is remedial, not punitive, and its

mechanisms cannot be stretched beyond the legislative

intent to encompass parties who are strangers to the

shared household. Therefore, the present petition under

Section 12 of the Act, 2005, insofar as it proceeds against

petitioner No.1 as well as petitioner Nos.2 to 8, is not

maintainable and constitutes an abuse of the process of

law. Accordingly , the points for consideration Nos.(i) and

(ii) are answered in the 'negative'. Hence, the following: - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:7767 CRL.P No. 201187 of 2025

HC-KAR

ORDER

I. The Criminal Petition is allowed.

II. The proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.466/2025 pending on

the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Bhalki filed

under the provisions of Section 12 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act,

2005 are hereby quashed .

Sd/-

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

SRT List No.: 2 Sl No.: 50 CT:SI