IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 781/2009 (Under Section 482 of the CrPC) Charanjit Kaur & Others …….Applicants Versus Smt. Himani Malhotra ……Respondent Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, for the applicants. Mr. L.K. Tiwari, Advocate, for the respondent. 19th December, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. By way of this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, moved under Section 482 CrPC, the prayer has been advanced to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 964/2009, Smt. Himani Malhotra v. Manpreet Malhotra & Others, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, the ‘Act’) including the order dated 25.9.2009, passed in the said case by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikas Nagar (Dehradun), which implies the issuance of notice to the applicants petitioners. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that marriage of Smt. Himani Malhotra was solemnized with Manpreet Malhotra on 8.10.2008 as per the Sikh rituals and ceremonies. Just after a couple of months of their marriage, differences cropped up between the two families and peaceful matrimonial life could not proceed any further. So, Smt. Himani Malhotra came back from her matrimonial house at Delhi to her parental house at Vikas Nagar, Dehradun and lodged an FIR on 13.8.2009 with police station Kotwali, Vikas Nagar (Dehradun) against Manpreeet 2 Malhotra (husband), Charanjit Kaur (mother-in-law) and Kulwant Singh (father-in-law). Manpreet Malhotra was arrested by the police and he was granted conditional bail on 31.8.2009 by the court below. In compliance of the conditions of the said bail order, rupees two lakhs and a number of household articles, which were given in dowry, were returned by the accused applicants to Smt. Himani Malhotra. Thereafter Smt. Himani Malhotra filed the present application/case no. 964/2009 under Section 12 of the Act, seeking relief as provided under Section 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act, against her husband Manpreeet Malhotra, father-in-law Kulwant Singh, mother-in-law Charanjit Kaur and sister-in-law Km. Ashmeet Kaur. In the said case, the notices have been served upon the applicants petitioners. So, they filed the instant petition and got interim stay on 14.10.2009, whereby this Court stayed the proceedings of the said case. Manpreet Malhotra (husband) is not an applicant in this petition. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers available on record. 4. Learned Counsel for the accused applicants argued that Smt. Himani Malhotra was living in the domestic relationship only with her husband Manpreet Malhotra and, therefore, there was no occasion for her to implicate the other present applicants petitioners, who are the parents-in-law and sister-in-law of Smt. Himani. Trying to substantiate his argument, learned Counsel read the definition of “aggrieved person”, as has been envisaged under the Act. 5. The above contention, advanced by learned Counsel for the applicants, is not at all tenable and cannot 3 be accepted inasmuch as the term “domestic relationship” has further been clarified by adding a proviso to sub-section (q) of Section 2 of the Act which envisages that “Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner”. The term “domestic relationship” has been used in the Act. Nowhere the term “matrimonial relationship” has been used in the Act. The term “domestic relationship” varies in its meaning from the term “matrimonial relationship”. Section 2(f) of the Act defines “domestic relationship”, which, inter alia, envisages that all the family members living together as a joint family shall be meant to living in domestic relationship. Thus, a female who comes in her matrimonial house after her wedding lives in the domestic relationship not only with her husband but also with all other relatives who are residing under the same roof of her matrimonial house. The amicable and peaceful living of such a female in her matrimonial house cannot be thought of without the cooperation of her husband as well as her in-laws. 6. The argument advanced on behalf of the applicants petitioners that all her dowry nay rupees two lakhs have been returned in compliance of the conditional bail order is also not acceptable for the reason that item no. 51 of the list of articles, which were returned, displays the return of an empty jewellery box, which, in fact, contained no jewellery. Besides, sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 26 of the Act are also relevant in regard to the present controversy, which are reproduced as below: “26. Relief in other suits and legal proceedings.—(1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil 4 court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act. (2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal court.” 7. So, the plea that some articles have been returned in addition to rupees two lakhs cannot be a deterrent for a female or a wife to seek the other sundry remedies and reliefs which are available to her under the Act. 8. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is meritless and deserves to be dismissed. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay order dated 14.9.2010 is hereby vacated. 9. Registry is directed to inform the court concerned accordingly. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 19.12.2011 Prabodh