Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: Court Case No. 195/DV/2023
ORDER BELOW EXH.11 AND 13
These applications are filed by the respondents challenging
the maintainability of this Domestic violence proceeding initiated by the
applicant.
2. These applications are opposed by the applicant by filing
reply below Exh.16.
3. Perused and heard.
4. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that, applicant
is not wife, she is not lived in shared household, she is not come under
the category of domestic relationship and respondents cannot fall under
the category of respondents as per provisions of Domestic Violence Act.
5. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the applicant
that, all the issues raised by the respondents will have to be inquired on
merit and that can be done by holding trial. The aforesaid issues raised
by respondents cannot be answered at this preliminary stage, hence, it is
requested that, application for maintainability be rejected. For this,
following judgments are relied upon-
1 Anamika Chandel Vs. Naresh Chandel
2 Tangella Ramesh Vs. State of Telangana
3 Prabha Tyagi Vs. Kamlesh Devi
6. The facts which emerges from the pleadings of the parties
are that, one Mr. Akhtar Rizvi is main person but he is not party to the
present petition. He is a husband of respondent No.2, father of
respondent No.3, and respondent No.1 is nephew. The applicant claimed
that, she is also wife of Mr. Akhtar Rizvi. The status of the applicant as
wife of Mr. Akhtar Rizvi is denied by respondents.
1/2
-- 1 of 2 --
Court Case No. 195/DV/2023
7. It is brought to notice of this court is that, respondent No.3
has challenged the status of the applicant as a wife before Family Court,
and that proceeding is going on. This court is cautious of this fact at this
preliminary stage this court cannot decide the status of the applicant as a
wedded wife or not. So, this court will decide only limited aspect which
is necessary to decide maintainability of present petition. For bringing in
the act of domestic violence under the Domestic Violence Act, it is
necessary that party should be in domestic relationship, they must have
shared the household, in short, they live together or lived together at any
point of time.
8. In the present case, it is an admitted position that, the
applicant never lived in shared household with the present respondents.
The living address of applicant and respondents are different. As per
Section 2(f) of Domestic Violence Act, the party must live together or
lived together at any point of time is necessary. But, In the present case,
they never lived together, and therefore, the act of respondents,
whatever may be, will be out of purview of domestic violence, as there is
lacking ingredients of domestic relationship.
9. The very basis of the D.V. Act is violence in home which is
shared household, if that is not there, D.V. Act would not be applicable.
10. The judgments cited above are distinguishable on the facts
of this case.
11. Furthermore, there is no pleading of domestic relationship
to be proved at the trial, hence, holding trial would be wastage of time.
In view of the fact that, there is no domestic relationship in between the
parties, as they never lived together, hence, this petition is disposed off,
as not maintainable.
MUMBAI (R. T. Ingle)
DATE – 07.09.2026 J.M.F.C., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
2/2
-- 2 of 2 --