#dv case miuse

[evinayak]

Visiting in laws 5days is NOT  dom relation so NO DV ! Only violence by person living n shared household =DV! Delhi Sessions court

A young woman, a daughter in law, is invited to a party thrown by the father in law retiring from service. To attend this party, she stays at the in father in law’s place a few days. But some domestic quarrel develops between herself and her husband. She files Domestic violence case on four of in laws saying it all happened when she was at their place !!

The court appreciates the facts and says (a) this DIL is not in domestic relationship with the in laws and visiting them a few days does not become domestic relationship (b) The is a distinction between an offence or violence between people in a domestic relationship and those outside. For other alleged quarrels / fights / offences a separate 498a etc FIR has been lodged based on wife’s complaint and so that can’t be DV!! Quoting cornerstone cases, The Hon court discharges all the in laws !!

Excerpts :

“…….It has been further held in the said judgment that where a family member leaves the shared household to establish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application u/S 12 of the D.V. Act on the basis of domestic relationship. It is the case of the respondent herself that after their marriage, they shifted to Vikas Puri and, thereafter, to Rohini. There is nothing in the application u/s 12 of the D. V Act to suggest that the respondent and her husband had been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right at Janak Puri……”

” …….. 9. So far as the incident that occurred on 2.7.2014 is concerned, a separate FIR has been registered under Sections 324/498A/34 IPC at PS Janak Puri but the said incident cannot be covered under the D.V. Act. There is a distinction between violence committed on a person living separate in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in the shared household. Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can constitute domestic violence. For taking this view I am supported with the judgment Vijay Verma (supra)…..”

******************************

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/12/25/dil-visiting-inlaws-fewdays-is-not-in-dom-relation-wid-them-no-dv-498a-dv-cocktail-delhi-sessions-court/

[evinayak]

DV on 6 inlaws 9 yrs AFTER husband's death! DV, Cruelty NOT proven. Wife totally Looses case ! Delhi MM

A wife who left her matri home even before the death of her husband, who lived away from the in laws both before and after husband's death, did NOT even remember the death dates of her father in law and mother in law, comes back 9 years after her husband's death to claim share in father in law's intestate property, by filing a DV case on her six surviving in laws !! she does NOT even remember when the father in law died !! The Hon MM court rightly appreciates the facts and throws the case out !!

Marriage : 1998

Husband dies : 2004

DV filed in : 2013 !! Yup 07 Sep 2013 , i.e. 9 years AFTER husband's death !

Problem ?? : property bearing No. 20/116, Dakshinpuri Extn. is in the name of complainant's father in law who has expired intestate !!!

Why DV : She & children have no shelter to pass their lives except their share in the property No. 20/116 Dakshinpuri Extn. !!! In laws clarify : THIS same wife who took away the (late) husband and made him severe all ties with in laws !! "...It is further stated that there is no question of committing cruelty by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 since marriage of complainant. It is further stated that father of respondent Jai Kishan had made separate arrangement for their three sons and Siri Kishan shifted to H. No. 20/6 , respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shifted to H. No. 20/116 and complainant alongwith her husband shifted to Gautampuri, near Badarpur and after shifting to present house, it is the complainant who forced her husband to severe all his relationship with the mother, father, brothers and sisters. .."

...and the truth comes out during cross / trial and Hon court decrees as follows : "...during cross-examination of complainant herself as she stated in cross-examination she did not know date of death of her mother in law and her father in law, though later on she stated that father in law expired in the month of May 2000 and mother in law expired 2 years back. She nowhere stated that she was residing at the aforesaid address at the time of death of her parents in law. Though, she has stated that she was residing in the said house but she has not stated as to what room/portion she was occupying in the said house and on which floor. .... She has further not proved list of articles which were kept in her room. Though she has filed photocopy of Election ID bearing address 20/116 Dakshinpuri but the same was issued to her in the year 2002 i.e. before the death of her husband. She has not filed any documents to show that she was residing in the aforesaid house after the death of her husband and till filing of this case. Further, the complainant has not proved any act of domestic violence committed upon her by the respondents. It is not proved that she was forcibly thrown out from the property, therefore, she has failed to prove that she is aggrieved person herein and is entitled to any relief under this Act. The application filed by the complainant is dismissed...."

************************************************

more at

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2015/12/23/wife-files-dv-on-6-inlaws-9-yrs-after-husbands-death-dv-cruelty-not-proven-looses-case-delhi-mm/