X v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.M.C. 1916 of 2025, decided on 3-7-2025.
Delhi High Court: The petitioner-wife filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing the orders of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, which upheld the Trial Court’s order, whereby the names of in-laws were deleted from the array of parties when omnibus allegations were mentioned against them. A Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora*, J., opined that no interference was warranted when non-summoning and deletion of parties was done due to lack of specific allegations against them in the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’).
Background The marriage between parties was solemnized in 2001 and lot of gifts as demanded by the in-laws at that time were given by the petitioner’s parents. It was alleged that the in-laws passed unwarranted remarks on her appearance, abused her when she touched feet of her father-in-law, and showed resentment against her post giving birth to a girl child. It was further alleged that her mother-in-law deprived her of even the basic needs and did not allow her to use money from Respondent 2-her husband’s earnings. The wife contended that the husband slapped her and that in-laws used abusive language against her routinely. Even when the wife had her gall bladder surgery, the husband and the in-laws offered her no help and later, the wife and the husband shifted to another house. The wife aggrieved by the said acts of domestic violence, filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV act before the Trial Court against her husband, parents-in-law and her brother-in-law and his wife. The Trial Court vide order dated 2-2-2023, held that there was no domestic relationship between wife and the in-laws, as the parties, i.e., the husband and the wife, were residing in a separate property and had established a separate household, therefore, the Trial Court deleted them from the array of parties. Thereafter, the wife filed an appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act against the order dated 2-2-2023, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court, thereby affirming the view taken by the Trial Court.
issuance of summons to the in-laws. The Court further stated that the specific incidents pleaded in the complaint against the husband had already resulted in initiation of criminal proceedings against him and the reliefs sought in the complaint were being pursued against husband and being heard by the Trial Court. Thus, the Trial Court’s order deleting in-laws from the array of parties required no interference. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition as the wife failed to show any infirmity in the impugned orders deleting Respondents 3, 5, and 6 from the array of parties.
Best domestic violence case lawyer in karkardooma Court East Delhi India
Top divorce case lawyer in Delhi India
Best domestic violence case lawyer in patiala house Court new Delhi India
Best domestic violence case lawyer in tis Hazari Court central Delhi India
Best divorce case lawyer in Delhi India
Mutual consent divorce case lawyer
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi
Comments
Post a Comment