LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Sunil (accountant)     05 February 2011

Trial courts cautioned on domestic violence cases



New Delhi, Oct 5 (IANS) Under the domestic violence law, a trial court cannot issue orders against those relatives of a married woman who have not been in a domestic relationship with her, the Delhi High Court has said.


“It is expected from the trial court that before passing an order under Domestic Violence Act, it must be satisfied that there existed a domestic relationship between the petitioner and the respondent,” said Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra Monday while setting aside a trial court’s order in favour of a widow.


“It is also incumbent upon the court to specify as to which of the respondents would be liable to make the payment of interim maintenance and why, keeping in view the provisions of the act,” Justice Dhingra said.


Setting aside the trial court passed against five male respondents on a petition filed by the widow, the high court expressed surprise as to why the order has been passed against all male relatives named by the complainant in her complaint.


Justice Dhingra said the trial court passed the order without coming to a conclusion whether any domestic relationship existed between the aggrieved person and the respondents.


“Neither the order of learned magistrate nor the order passed by learned additional sessions judge specify as to which of the respondent out of the five would be liable to make the payment and why,” he said.


“The learned magistrate has only discussed the broad allegations and counter allegations but her order is conspicuously silent as to who were in the domestic relationship with the widow and who out of the five persons had deprived the widow of financial resources, if any, and who was liable to pay maintenance,” observed the court.


The court remanded back the case to the trial court asking the concerned magistrate to pass an order accordance with law.


 8 Replies


What if the respondents who were NOT IN DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH THE AGGRIEVED PERSON misbehave with her on telephone,in a family wedding,or in any personal interaction outside home?


Will it not be an act of cruelty?


The people who LIVE WITH the aggrieved person can always take help of such relatives/family members who DON'T live in same house,because they will not get booked even after abusing the lady.


1 Like

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     23 February 2011

@ Meenal

Que. 1: What if bhai (Dawood or Chota Shakeel) calls her from
Will it not be act of cruelty?
Well the people who LIVE with the aggrieved wife can always take help of bhai as every Indian is in eleventh degree related to world humanity if genetic DNA fingerprint is scientific evidence as per NHS (UK) Scientific presentation Newsletter hai ki nahi !

Que 2: What if the family dhobi servicing the "shared household" from generations one fine day start bargaining with this new bhabi ji cometh in a "shared household", telling her "arey bhabi ji apaki saas toh 2 rupaye deti thi shirt press karvaney ke aap kanjusi kar rahi hai 1 rupaya press ka de kar",
Will it not be act of cruelty by family dhobi?

Everyone treats family dhobi as extended part of their family is it not a Indian custom! Comn
India’s great post 26-10-2006 first generation of wife’s “bhool gayi uss Raju bhayya ke haath ki gol-gappey kya jo college ke dino se sasural taak yaad kar kar key thak jyati hon aap abhi bhi apani mummy ke sath…..” Toh madam jab who bhayya abhi taak apkey mayakey ka hai toh kya dhobi bhi sasural walo ka chotu bhayya nahi hai toh ban gaya na “domestic relationship” fir aur “relative toh hai hi who aab dave ke saath” kyu ji……….
It is a  "verbal abuse to lady" as this dhobi is coming from generations upon generations to service this home of her husband and saas - sasur - nanad - dewar ji - dewarayin and all those pilley at the home hai na ?
Jaroor hai, mai toh kahunga, uss dhobi ki itani himmat ki bhanji se 1 rupaya jyada manga who eik din!

Aab domestic relationship ko flexible banatey hai thoda sa - kyu nahi!

I am missing Sh. Soli Sarabjii n LCI today.............Admin Sir kaha hai aap……………….
Sir, please throw out your wisdom it has become obsolete  

Hon'ble Dhingra ji 5 dino mei to retire ho rahey ho aap, kya jatey jatey saab dhobio jo respondent hai ka cases ko quash karvay rahey hon, waisey bhi apaki to single bench judgment hai kaun quote karega 1st. March key baad abb saadi deli mei:-((((((( 

1 Like


I'm not pointing to any dhobi or sabziwala


But only to such relatives or family members who "misbehave severely" with a "wronged woman"



Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     23 February 2011

Originally posted by :Meenal Bahadur
I'm not pointing to any dhobi or sabziwala 

But only to such relatives or family members who "misbehave severely" with a "wronged woman"


 Pointing ! Kamal kar diya apney iss brahma muhurat mei. na na mai nahi manuga aaz ki aap saab respected ladies 4 saal purana kanoon ko bhool gayi yeh kya kiya tussi lawyers collective nei uff sari mehanat unki fail kar di aaz apaney yeh kaha kar.

Madam ji, eik husband key ghar ka kutta (dog in case my hindi is not understandable) was named as respondent 8. Arey yehi nahi husband ka America mei baitha dost jo gadha 60's mei America gaya tha aur aaz taak India wapas nahi aya lekin video conferencing mei apaney dost sey kabhi kabhi baat kar leta tha woh bhi respondent 5 ho gaya tha eik case mei. Aab yeh saabh dhobi / sabzi waley / kuttey bakari bhi respondent baney they jinka quash HC ne kiya kabhi dikato ke baad toh aap to aaz majak kar rahi hai. mei apko bada serious writer samajhta tha...

Citation du madam iss respondent no. 8 aur respondent 5 key Quash proceedings ka? Baas hukum kariya pesh kar dunga.............

2 Like

Lekha (working)     23 February 2011

I agree with meenal ji.

@Tajobindia- iam sorry ur post is not making any sense, its just a trash comedy.

And if you have such cases judgements then post here otherwise dhobhi sabziwala stuff is not making sense.

Jamai Of Law (propra)     23 February 2011

Ha ha ha ha


Someone has to take initiative...so that others also know that................. such kind of relief against weird/difficult to express kind of Domestic Suffocation is also there !!! or such remedy may be scatched out !!!


This is called a cruelty simplicitor in DV.


Relatives of a respondent can be made co-respondents in DV.


So One can always allege that Respondent induced the relative(co-respondent) to commit atrocity on the victim female....


or that remote relative (co-respondent) on its own motion perpetrated as that co-respondent had some kind of unusual symapthy and partisan towards the respondent and prejudice against the petitioner!, and Respondent turned a blind eye to all this!! 

So co-respondent becomes a main respondent!!



Cruelty of category of Domestic violence can also be committed living remotely (but exercising remote control and interference!!!) 



And hence although respondent (husband) may not be culprit/offender directly or indirectly but his remote relatives (co-respondents) have definitely created DV !  :)


Anyways DV is the protective order. So...why one shouldn't get protection against the interference of remotely placed in-laws (snap remote control!!!)???



Any direct or indirect actor at the behest of the husband, or on it motion with partisan to husband and induced prejudice against the petitioner, should come under the umbrella of DV!!!! shouldn' it?


1 Like

Mallik Karra (Done with AIBE)     23 February 2011

Jai Ho Dhingra Jee...


Point#1 - This case is talking about DV only, when someone is threatining over phone who is a relative of husband then the doors of 498a are open ain't it... and if the person is not related to husband then..... refer IPC


Point#2 - Justice Dhingra has given some clarity who can be said to have shared a household.


Any direct or indirect actor at the behest of the husband, or on it motion with partisan to husband and induced prejudice against the petitioner, should come under the umbrella of DV!!!! shouldn' it? - No it should not pls refer Sec 5(e) of DV

1 Like

rajiv_lodha (zz)     27 February 2011

Ppl want 2 use DV at the drop of hat. If somebody has said cruel things to another fellow (either male or female), he should take shelter of already existing laws upon this affair, why pulling all disputes into DV by hook or crook! Just to terrorize husband by false stories??

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register