Home > DV Judgements > Domestic Violence Act is being used to settle property dispures

Domestic Violence Act is being used to settle property dispures

Uttaranchal High Court
Rafat Araa vs Kamar Mirja on 4 January, 2012

CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION (C-482) No. 600 of 2011

Rafat Araa

W/o Jafar Khan @ Darban Singh

R/o Mohalla Katortal Nai Basti

Near Lashkhar Kashipur

District Udham Singh Nagar



Kamar Mirja

S/o Kaishar Mirja

R/o Mohalla Katortal Nai Basti

Near Lashkhar Kashipur

District Udham Singh Nagar


Shri D.C.S.Rawat, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Verma, Advocate, present for the respondent.

Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.


(2) By means of this petition, moved under section 2

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner has quashing of the judgment and order dated 16.05.2011, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur, in Criminal Appeal No. 133 of 2010, Qamar Mirja vs. Rafat Araa, filed under section 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

(3) Brief facts of the case, are that, the petitioner Rafat Araa is real aunt (BUA) of the respondent Qamar Mirja. She moved an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against the respondent pleading that she was being subjected to physical cruelty by the respondent to oust her from the house, they are living together. It is also pleaded by the petitioner Smt. Rafat Araa that the house was purchased by her husband through a registered sale deed from Kaisar Mirja (father of the present respondent), and allowed Qamar Mirja (nephew of the petitioner) to stay in the house as a goodwill gesture. On the other hand, the respondent pleaded before the trial court that where abouts of his father are not 3

known, and the alleged sale deed is a forged document. The respondent further pleaded that it was he who allowed the petitioner Smt Rafat Araa as she was his aunt to stay in the house.

(4) In the above circumstances, the pleading of the parties suggest that it is a dispute of ownership of the house in question. However, what is to be seen for the purposes of this case, is whether the property is a shared household, or not.

(5) The definition of “shared household” is mentioned in clause (s) of section 2 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It reads as under:-

” shared household ” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of 4

them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.

The above definition makes it clear that the aggrieved must have lived in a domestic relationship with the respondent. The definition of “domestic relationship” is given in clause (f) of section 2 of the Act. Said definition reads as under :-

“domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family;


From the above definition of domestic relationship it appears that it is necessary that the aggrieved person should have related to the respondent by consanguinity, marriage or through the relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or as a member of joint family. It is nobody’s case that there was a joint family of the petitioner and her brother Kaisar Mirja (father of the respondent). Nor, the petitioner and respondent are related by consanguinity, marriage, or relationship in the nature of marriage, or adoption.

(6) ” Aggrieved person” is defined in clause (a) of section 2 of the Act. The same reads as under:-

” aggrieved person” means any woman who is , or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.;

(7) In the above circumstances, having gone through the definition of ” aggrieved person” 6

given in clause (a) of section 2, and that of “domestic relationship” and ” shared household”, quoted above, this court comes to the conclusion that the aunt (BUA), and her nephew can not be said to be the persons living together in a shared household, under the domestic relationship. That being so, the appellate court has committed no illegality in allowing the appeal, and setting aside the order passed by the Magistrate in favour of the petitioner.

(8) Accordingly, this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is dismissed.

(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)




Categories: DV Judgements
  1. rajat
    February 4, 2012 at 9:22 am

    In any DV case, the poor husband is treated like a “Bakra”. At each and every step each and everyone tries to extort the money. Each and every one also includes the judiciary. In a case in Delhi, the judge is freightening the husband and no stone is left unturned to achieve the malafide objectives. Mediator who are entrusted with the job of compromising the families with an objective of settlement of the couples if possible asked the husband as to how much he would like to give it to wife who has already abused the law in filing false cases against him and his entire family whether residing or not with the couple is immaterial. The husband had the courage of saying “not even a single penny” and then starts getting threatening from mediator and the judicial system. Mediator and the judicial system makes a statement that whether husband has done anything or not or even if he and his family himself has been subjected to mental torture by wife has no locus standii in the case and he has to shell out the money in any case. Husbands are continuously subjected to mental torture even by the judicial system. “Jiasey hee koi ladki CAW cell ya Police Station jaati hai it becomes an occassion of celebration by all that ek aur bakra mil jayega!!!!!!!!!!!”. It is worthwhile to say that they (all stakeholders incl CAW cell, police Station, JudicaRY, Law makers pretending to care about girls) do not have any sympathy with the girl but are more attentive to that it has become their source of earning nahin to kya yeh Act rampant abuse ke liye banaaya jaata aur amendment ke liye bhi nahin consider karte despite Supreme Court calling this Act as “Legal Terrorism” or “Draconian Law”

  2. rajat
    February 4, 2012 at 9:41 am

    Any Film Producer who want to get film produced on real life story depicting rampant abuse of DV Act, Dowry Act etc. These are burning issues and need sensitization in the society.

  3. J.M. Markandey
    March 1, 2012 at 10:15 am

    The wayward girls & their (so called) family members, today are blackmailing innocent & good boys & their families for extorting money. And there are some Lawyers, who are also supposed to protect innocents, have become “Supari Takers” & are guiding such criminals only to receive their share of flesh. By doing so they forget that some day some one like these wolves would eat his own flesh.
    The law makers should not remain as mute observers-They must act & act very fast to check this crime happen & make the Laws which will severely punish such criminals who are making mockery of the Laws that are framed to protect the real helpless & hapless girls. They also should be aware of the fact that some day they also can fall prey to such criminals who would tear apart his own family fabric.
    No doubt the Justice Does prevail but it takes years & the Boys get old & their planning of life gets shattered. And the Girls derive sadistic pleasure in spoiling the lives of the Boys & their Families. For God’s sake wake up & prevent the criminals to rend the fabric of Indian Society.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: