Add your promotional text...

Shared household between the petitioner and the respondents, an essential condition for applying the Domestic Violence Act.

Title: Kamlesh Devi vs. Jaipal & Ors

Facts of the Case:

In Kamlesh Devi vs. Jaipal & Ors., the petitioner, Kamlesh Devi, filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her relatives, alleging harassment of her daughters. The respondents, who lived in the same vicinity, were accused of inappropriate behavior toward her daughters. Kamlesh's family and the respondents had previously agreed to maintain peace following complaints, but the misconduct resumed, leading her to pursue legal action.

Key Legal Issues:

The central legal question was whether the parties shared a "domestic relationship" under the Domestic Violence Act, requiring them to live in the same "shared household." Kamlesh Devi argued that the respondents were part of her family and lived on the same premises, thus justifying the complaint under the Act.

Judgement Highlights:

  1. Shared Household Criterion: The Court found that there was no shared household between the petitioner and the respondents, an essential condition for applying the Domestic Violence Act. The respondents were family members but did not live under the same roof.

  2. No Domestic Relationship Established: The Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that familial ties alone were insufficient to invoke the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act without cohabitation in a shared household.

  3. Appeals Rejected: The Judicial Magistrate's dismissal of the complaint was upheld by both the Sessions Court and the High Court. The Supreme Court also confirmed that no elements of domestic violence were present, leading to the final rejection of the Special Leave Petition.

Legal Implications:

This ruling underscores the importance of the "shared household" requirement in cases under the Domestic Violence Act. Mere familial relationships or residing in proximity without cohabitation are insufficient grounds for complaints under this legislation.

Judgement