The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act casts a wide net over respondents — but the net has a fixed anchor: a domestic relationship. In Crl.M.C. No. 7248 of 2026 (decided 18 September 2026), the Kerala High Court quashed proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act against a brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the aggrieved person, holding that “the existence of a domestic relationship is a foundational requirement” and that “the complete absence of any factual foundation regarding the existence of a domestic relationship cannot be overlooked.”
The application and the challenge
A woman filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act against five respondents: her husband, his parents, and his brother and sister-in-law. The brother and sister-in-law moved the High Court to quash the proceedings against them, pointing out that the application contained no pleading — and the record no material — showing that they had ever shared a household with her.
The Court’s reasoning
The wider pattern courts are policing
Matrimonial litigation has a familiar pathology: every adult in the husband’s family is named — brothers, married sisters, their spouses — regardless of where they live or what they are alleged to have done. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against this in the Section 498A context, and High Courts are applying the same discipline inside the DV Act through the domestic-relationship requirement. The DV Act’s remedies are powerful precisely because they are quick and interim-heavy; the foundational requirement is what keeps that machinery trained on genuine households rather than extended-family score-settling.
The shared-household concept has its own depth — the Supreme Court has held that a wife’s right to reside under Section 17 does not depend on ownership, and separate senior-citizens legislation can interact with residence claims. This decision addresses the prior question: whether a particular relative is within the Act at all. Only once that gate is crossed do the substantive reliefs arise for consideration.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can be a respondent in a DV Act case?
Any adult person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, including relatives of the husband or male partner. The expansion to relatives does not dispense with the core requirement: the parties must live or have lived together in a shared household within the meaning of Section 2(f).
What must an application plead against each relative?
A factual foundation specific to that respondent — that shared living occurred, when and where, and what acts of domestic violence are attributed to them. Omnibus allegations that sweep in married relatives living separately, without such foundation, invite quashing as regards those respondents.
Does quashing against some respondents end the DV case?
No. In this case the proceedings were quashed only against respondent Nos. 4 and 5; the application continued against the husband and the remaining respondents. Quashing is respondent-specific and turns on each person's pleaded relationship.
Which court can quash DV proceedings?
The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers — now Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC) — can terminate DV Act proceedings that amount to an abuse of process, as was done here where the foundational jurisdictional fact was missing.