The Kerala High Court has quashed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) against a brother-in-law and sister-in-law after finding that the application did not contain any factual basis showing that they had ever lived with the aggrieved person in a shared household.
Justice Jobin Sebastian passed the order on September 18, 2026, in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 7248 of 2026. The petition challenged proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode.
Background
The original proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of the PWDV Act seeking various reliefs. The husband was arrayed as the first respondent, his parents as the second and third respondents, while the petitioners before the High Court were the fourth and fifth respondents, described in the order as the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the aggrieved person.
The two petitioners argued that they had never lived with the aggrieved person in a shared household and, therefore, there was no domestic relationship between them. They also contended that the allegations against them were general and omnibus in nature.
The respondent opposed the plea, arguing that specific allegations had been made and that the truth of those allegations could properly be examined only during the proceedings before the Magistrate.
The High Court considered whether the petitioners could legally be treated as “respondents” under the PWDV Act. Section 2(f) defines a domestic relationship as one between persons who live, or have at any point lived, together in a shared household in specified relationships, including family members living together as a joint family.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hiral P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, which held that a woman can also be arrayed as a respondent under the PWDV Act. The issue in the present case, however, was not the gender of the respondents but whether the required domestic relationship existed.
The Court observed:
“A bare reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that, in order to bring a person within the ambit of a ‘domestic relationship’, it must be established that the parties live, or have at any point in time lived, together in a shared household and that their relationship falls within one of the categories contemplated under the provision, namely, consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or being family members living together as a joint family. The provision, however, does not require the parties to be presently residing together. The statutory requirement is satisfied if they had lived together in a shared household at any point in time.”
The Court found that the Section 12 application did not state that the brother-in-law and sister-in-law had ever lived with the petitioner. There were also no pleadings showing that they had shared a household with her or lived together as members of a joint family.
The Court clarified that proceedings under the PWDV Act are not required to follow the strict pleading standards applicable to civil suits. However, some factual foundation establishing a domestic relationship must still be disclosed.
It further held:
“There must be some factual foundation, either in the pleadings or in the materials accompanying the application, indicating that the parties had lived together in a shared household at some point in time. The absence of a detailed or technically worded pleading may not, by itself, be fatal; however, the complete absence of any factual foundation regarding the existence of a domestic relationship cannot be overlooked.”
The High Court concluded that the materials did not disclose any domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and respondents 4 and 5. It held that continuing the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the Court allowed Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 7248 of 2026 and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in M.C. No. 77 of 2026 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode.
The Court clarified that the original proceedings would continue against the remaining respondents in accordance with law.
Case Details
Case Title: A & Anr vs S
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 7248 of 2026
Judge: Justice Jobin Sebastian
Decision Date: September 18, 2026
