Gujarat HC Quashes Domestic Violence Complaint Against Sisters-in-Law Who Never Shared a Household With Complainant

Justice A.Y. Kogje set aside proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against two married sisters-in-law, finding only vague, general allegations and no shared residence with the complainant.

The High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has quashed a Domestic Violence Act complaint insofar as it named two sisters-in-law of the complainant as respondents. Justice A.Y. Kogje, sitting singly, found that the only allegation against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 — that they instigated the complainant's husband to demand dowry — was general in nature, and that both sisters-in-law had been married and living separately well before the complainant's own marriage into the family. The petition before the court arose from Criminal Misc. Application No. 316 of 2022 pending before the 10th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The complainant, Aksanabanu Samirbhai Lakhani, married into the Lakhani family on 1 November 2013 at Bhavnagar under Muslim custom. Two children were born of the marriage. According to the petitioners, the complainant left the matrimonial home on 21 July 2022 along with both children and returned to her parental home. On 26 August 2022, she filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 316 of 2022 under the Domestic Violence Act against all family members of her husband before the 10th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar. On the same day, she also filed an application for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Bhavnagar.

The petitioners before the High Court were the husband's father and mother (petitioner Nos. 1 and 2) and two sisters (petitioner Nos. 3 and 4). At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition on behalf of the father-in-law and mother-in-law. The court disposed of the petition as not pressed qua petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. The contest before the court narrowed entirely to whether the complaint could survive against the two sisters-in-law.

What Each Side Argued

Counsel for petitioner Nos. 3 and 4, Mr. Kuldeep D. Vaidya, argued that the complaint was filed as a strategy to harass the family. He emphasised that both sisters-in-law had been married and had been residing separately long before the complainant's marriage to their brother, so the question of physical or mental torture by them did not arise. He further submitted that the complaint carried only vague and general allegations against the sisters-in-law, with no specific conduct attributed to them apart from alleged instigation.

Counsel also pointed to the complainant's litigation history. He submitted that the complainant had previously filed proceedings in 2017, including an earlier application under the Domestic Violence Act and a Section 498A complaint, all of which she withdrew on 29 September 2018 after a settlement brokered by elders and community leaders. The second Domestic Violence Act complaint was therefore filed against a backdrop of prior withdrawn proceedings.

For the complainant, Mr. Aditya J. Pandya argued that all petitioners, including the sisters-in-law, had subjected the complainant to mental and physical torture. He submitted that the complainant was treated as domestic help, was asked not to contact her parents, and that the husband's demands for a laptop, watch, and mobile phone were instigated by the in-laws. He further stated that the expenses at the time of the birth of the complainant's daughter were borne by the complainant's own father, and that the in-laws had expressed a preference for a male child. On this basis, counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 urged the court to dismiss the petition.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Kogje examined the complaint as a whole. He found that the principal allegations were directed at the husband — who was not a party to the quashing petition — centring on demands for dowry in the form of a laptop, watch, and mobile phone. The court observed that the in-laws were said to have instigated the husband, but that this was the extent of what was alleged against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 specifically.

The court's reasoning on the sisters-in-law was direct. Since they had been married and living separately before the complainant even entered the family, the question of them inflicting mental or physical torture on her in a shared household simply did not arise. The only allegation — instigation for dowry demands — was, in the court's view, general and unsubstantiated. The ingredients required under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act were not made out against them.

Justice Kogje also noted that the complainant herself had, in the complaint, acknowledged prior proceedings filed in 2017, including an earlier Domestic Violence Act application, all of which she withdrew in 2018. He observed that the impugned complaint was the second Domestic Violence Act complaint filed against the same family members after that withdrawal.

The court drew on two Supreme Court decisions to contextualise the pattern. In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, the Supreme Court had observed that Section 498A of the IPC “has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives.” The court in that case had noted that bedridden grandparents and sisters living abroad for decades were being arrested under the provision.

Justice Kogje also quoted at length from Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in (2010) 7 SCC 667, which concerned proceedings under Section 498A against a married sister-in-law. The Supreme Court in that case had observed that complaints are often filed “in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations” and that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is not uncommon. The Supreme Court had also cautioned that allegations against relatives living in different cities and rarely visiting the complainant “would have an entirely different complexion” and require scrutiny with care and circumspection.

Applying this reasoning, the Gujarat High Court found that no case for continuation of the Domestic Violence Act complaint was made out against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4.

Outcome

The court allowed the petition qua petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. Criminal Misc. Application No. 316 of 2022 pending before the 10th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar, under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act, and all proceedings arising from it, stand quashed and set aside insofar as they concern the two sisters-in-law. Rule was made absolute. Direct service was permitted.

The proceedings against the husband of the complainant, who was not a party to the quashing petition, and the maintenance application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Family Court, Bhavnagar, were not addressed by this order.