The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 opens its doors only to an "aggrieved person" who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent. In CA No. 177/2026 (decided 24 October 2026), the Court of Sh. Parveen Singh, Additional Sessions Judge-03, North East District, Karkardooma, held that this threshold was not crossed where the complainant widow and her late husband's relatives occupied separate floors of the same building, with no shared kitchen, no pooled finances and independent sources of income. The appeal under Section 29 was allowed, the Magistrate's order declining to drop the proceedings was set aside, and the DV petition itself was dismissed.
The dispute
The respondent, widowed in 2003, lived on the first floor of a family house in Sudamapuri, Delhi. She filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act against her brother-in-law and his family members, alleging harassment aimed at forcing her to vacate the floor she occupied. The history between the parties was long: an earlier DV petition had been disposed of in 2019 on a joint statement, and a civil suit concerning eviction was already pending between them.
The respondents before the Magistrate applied to drop the proceedings, contending that the parties lived on separate floors as separate establishments, so the foundational requirement of a shared household was missing. The trial court dismissed that application on 22 July 2026. The family appealed to the Sessions Court under Section 29.
What the Sessions Court held
Intention governs
Whether persons living in one house share a domestic relationship turns on their intention — whether they live together as a family, or merely under the same roof.
Facts admitted
Both sides accepted that they occupied separate floors, maintained separate kitchens, did not pool finances and earned independently.
No shared household
Applying Vijay Verma and the Supreme Court's exposition in Prabha Tyagi, the court found no domestic relationship between the widow and her in-laws.
Civil dispute identified
The grievance about access, egress and common areas was a civil controversy, outside a Magistrate's DV Act jurisdiction.
The court quoted the governing principle: a domestic relationship continues so long as the parties live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared household, and mere fleeting or casual living at different places does not make a shared household. Measured against that standard, two branches of a family running wholly separate establishments on different floors — however acrimonious their relations — are not in a domestic relationship with each other. The impugned order was set aside, the appeal allowed, and the DV petition dismissed. As one of the appellants had already been dropped from the proceedings below, the appeal did not survive as to him.
Why the threshold matters
| Element | Provision | What must be shown |
|---|---|---|
| Aggrieved person | Section 2(a), DV Act | A woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges domestic violence |
| Domestic relationship | Section 2(f), DV Act | Living together, at present or in the past, in a shared household, through marriage, blood, adoption or joint family |
| Shared household | Section 2(s), DV Act | A household where the aggrieved person lives or has lived in a domestic relationship, alone or with the respondent |
| Reliefs | Sections 17 to 22 | Residence, protection, monetary and compensation orders — all presuppose the relationship threshold |
The decision does not dilute the wide protective sweep of the Act. The Supreme Court has held that a woman need not be living with the respondent at the date of the application, and that the right to reside under Section 17 is not defeated by temporary absence. What the Act does not do is convert every quarrel between relatives who happen to occupy one building into domestic violence. Where the living arrangement itself negates a shared household — separate floors, separate kitchens, separate finances, separate lives — the Magistrate's jurisdiction is not attracted, and the remedy for obstruction of a passage or a staircase lies in a civil suit.
Practical notes for both sides
For complainants, the lesson is to plead the domestic relationship with precision: when the parties lived together, in which premises, in what arrangement, and when the arrangement changed. A petition that rests on residence in the same building, without more, invites a foundational challenge. Where the real grievance is dispossession from property, civil remedies — and, for senior citizens, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act route — may fit the facts better than the DV Act.
For respondents, the judgment confirms that the domestic-relationship objection can be raised and decided early, and that an adverse interlocutory order is appealable under Section 29. The objection is not a technicality: it goes to the Magistrate's very jurisdiction to grant any relief under the Act.
This article summarises a judgment of a Delhi district court for general information. The DV Act threshold is fact-sensitive: small differences in living arrangements, financial arrangements and family structure can change the outcome. Nothing here is legal advice on any specific case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a "domestic relationship" under the DV Act?
Section 2(f) defines it as a relationship between two persons who live, or have at any point lived, together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption, or as family members living together as a joint family. Both elements matter: the relationship and the living together in a shared household.
Why did living in the same building not qualify?
The parties' own submissions showed they lived on separate floors, had no common kitchen, did not pool finances and had independent income sources. Relying on the principles in Vijay Verma and Prabha Tyagi, the court looked at the intention of the parties living in the house and found that the arrangement was one of separate establishments under one roof, not a shared household.
Does this mean disputes over stairs and common passages cannot go to a DV court?
The court characterised the egress and ingress dispute as a civil controversy about the use of a common area, appropriate for a civil court, not for a Magistrate exercising DV Act jurisdiction. Genuine domestic violence within a domestic relationship remains squarely within the Act; property disputes dressed as DV petitions do not.
What happens to the DV petition after such an appeal?
Under Section 29, the Sessions Court can set aside the Magistrate's order. Here it went further on the foundational point: since no domestic relationship existed, the petition itself was dismissed. A complainant in such a situation must pursue civil remedies — injunction, declaration or partition — for the underlying property grievance.