JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings of the Complaint No. 46/2009 pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Badi Sadri District Chittorgarh under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. 2. The petitioners herein are the son and wife respectively of late Rameshwarlal. The respondent No. 2 claiming herself to be wedded to late Rameshwarlal filed an application under Sections 12 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners with the allegation that after the husband Shri Rameshwarlal expired, the petitioners herein deprived her from her husband's property, the service benefits to which she was entitled upon the death of her husband as well as the share of the property of her husband. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the claim of the complainant regarding her being entitled to the benefits upon the death of her husband Rameshwarlal is absolutely unfounded. He submits that admittedly, the deceased Rameshwarlal was having a prior subsisting valid marriage with the petitioner No. 2 i.e. Ramibai referring to the service documents of the deceased. 4. It is pointed out that Ramibai was the nominee of Rameshwarlal in the service documents. He submits that there in no allegation of the complainant in her application under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act that she ever resided with the petitioners in a shared household. Thus, it is submitted that exfacie the application filed by the respondent against the petitioners claiming on the post death benefits of the petitioner No. 2's husband is misconceived. Thus, it is prayed that the entire proceedings of the complaint deserve to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant submits that respondent No. 2 raided together with the petitioners in a shared household during the life time of her husband late Rameshwarlal. He submits that an agreement was executed between the parties whereby, the petitioners agreed to share property and the benefits upon the death of Rameshwralal and thus, he submits that the proceedings of the complainant do not deserve to be quashed. 6. He submits that an agreement was executed between the parties whereby, the petitioners agreed to share property and the benefits upon the death of Rameshwralal and thus, he submits that the proceedings of the complainant do not deserve to be quashed. 6. Upon the consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and going through the material available on record, it is evident that only nominee of the deceased Rameshwarlal in his service record was the petitioner No. 2 Ramibai and therefore, she has rightly been given the benefit pursuant to the death of Rameshwarlal. The agreement, which the counsel for the respondent rely upon can entitle her to file civil proceedings for the execution thereof but from a bare reading of the definitions of the terms Domestic relationship and shared household in reference to the averments made by the complainant in her application under The Domestic Violence Act, it is manifest that there is no such averment in the complaint that the respondent had ever resided in a shared household with the petitioners or that she had ever been in Domestic Relationship with them. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, the provisions of the impugned complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners are not covered within the ambit of the provisions of Domestic Violence Act.The petition thus succeeds and the proceedings of the impugned Complaint No. 46/2009 filed by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioners are hereby quashed.State application is disposed of.Petition allowed. *******