The Telangana High Court has quashed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against a woman living in the United States who was accused of harassing her sister-in-law for dowry through phone calls. The court observed that the two women never lived together in a shared household, a mandatory condition under the Act.
The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman (respondent no. 2) who married petitioner no. 1 in 2020. She alleged that her in-laws cared for her for the first three months of marriage but later forced her to handle all household chores without assistance. The complainant further accused them of demanding additional dowry.
Allegations Against the US-Based Sister-in-Law
The complainant claimed that her sister-in-law (petitioner-respondent no. 5), residing in America, harassed her by repeatedly demanding dowry over the phone. However, Justice Juvvadi Sridevi clarified that under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, such allegations fall under the Act only when the accused has lived with the aggrieved person in a domestic relationship within a shared household at some point in time.
Court’s Legal Reasoning
The court emphasized that the Domestic Violence Act is quasi-civil in nature and applies only when the accused and complainant have resided together in a shared household, either alone or with others. It found no evidence that the petitioner and the complainant had ever lived together.
Quoting the Act, the court stated:
“It is nowhere established that the petitioner-respondent No.5 (sister-in-law) and respondent No.2 have ever resided in a domestic relationship in a shared household at any point of time. Therefore, the ingredients of the offences under DV Act are not made out.”
Arguments and Court’s Conclusion
The Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that there were specific allegations that should be tested in a full trial. However, the court found that the complaint lacked dates, times, and specific incidents, making the claims vague and omnibus in nature.
Given the absence of essential elements required under the DV Act, the court concluded that the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of legal process. Accordingly, it quashed the case against the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 11818 of 2023.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
- Shared household is essential for DV Act applicability.
- Mere phone call allegations without cohabitation do not qualify.
- Courts can quash cases with vague and unspecific claims.
- The ruling reinforces strict interpretation of domestic violence provisions.
This judgment underscores that the DV Act cannot be used against individuals who have never lived with the complainant, even if there are allegations of harassment from abroad. It sets a significant precedent in distinguishing between personal disputes and legally actionable domestic violence claims.
