JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ajai Lamba, J.—This order shall dispose of three cases i.e. Case : Under Section 482/378/407 No. 3190 of 2014 titled ‘Arun Sharma v. The State of U.P. and others’, Case : Under Section 482/378/407 No. 2002 of 2014 titled ‘Smt. Sangeeta Sharma v. State of U.P. and another’ and Case : Under Section 482/378/407 No. 2332 of 2014 titled ‘Smt. Ushma Sharda v. The State of U.P. and another’. 2. All the petitions seek common relief i.e. quashing of proceedings in complaint No. 267 of 2014 (Geeta Mehta v. Arun Sharma and others) dated 5.02.2014 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘Domestic Violence Act’) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow. The petition also seeks quashing of order dated 5.02.2014 (Annexure-2) vide which notice has been issued taking cognizance of the complaint made by the respondent. 3. For reference to record, Case : Under Section 482/378/407 No. 3190 of 2014 titled ‘Arun Sharma v. The State of U.P. and others’ is being taken up. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that the complaint at the instance of respondent-complainant against the petitioners is not maintainable for the reason that the said respondent cannot be said to be an aggrieved person in context of the petitioners. The respondent was married more than 30 years back. The marriage is still subsisting and, therefore, cannot be said to be in “domestic relationship” in “shared household”. It has been contended that the petitioners are respondents in the complaint. Respondent can only be an adult male person. In such circumstances, complaint against Sangeeta Sharma and Ushma Sharda is per se not maintainable. It has also been argued that it is in total abuse of process of the Court and process of law that the complaint has been instituted for greed of money and property which is evident from the facts of the case, on bare perusal of the complaint. Even if all the allegations in the complaint are accepted to be true and correct, yet the complaint is neither maintainable nor cognizance of the same could have been taken by the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has argued that promise for a flat at issue and other moveable property was made which has not been honoured. Even if all the allegations in the complaint are accepted to be true and correct, yet the complaint is neither maintainable nor cognizance of the same could have been taken by the Court. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant has argued that promise for a flat at issue and other moveable property was made which has not been honoured. The respondent-complainant is member of the family of the petitioners and had been living in “domestic relationship” with the petitioners in “shared household” and, therefore, is an aggrieved person. The respondent-complainant has had strained relationship with her husband, therefore, has right to initiate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act to claim residential property from her brother, sister and sister-in-law i.e. the petitioners. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record. 7. The relationship of the petitioners and respondents is that father of respondent-complainant-Geeta Mehta, petitioners-Ushma Sharda and Arun Sharma is Shri Inder Jit Sharma. Petitioner-Sangeeta Sharma is the wife of Arun Sharma. 8. The present is a very unfortunate dispute wherein Geeta Metha (hereafter referred to as the respondent/complainant) wife of Rajeev Kumar Mehta resident of E-3/253, Sector-H, LDA Colony, Kanpur Road, Police Station Aashiana, District Lucknow has instituted impugned proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against her own brother namely Arun Sharma who is residing in Block D-7/2, Shubham Apartment, Dilshad Colony, Delhi-95, wife of Arun Sharma namely Sangeeta Sharma; And Ushma Sharda, sister of Geeta Mehta who is residing in her own matrimonial home i.e. in 7097-Sector-B, Pocket-10, Vasant Kunj, Delhi. 9. (a) Respondent/Complainant filed the impugned complaint with the allegations that her father Inder Jit Sharma and his wife Rajrani Sharma had executed a Will in regard to their movable and immovable property. It has been alleged that Rajrani Sharma, the mother, had bequeathed her moveable and immoveable property in favour of Arun Sharma and Ushma Sharda which is bringing sufficient income to the said two persons. It has further been alleged that Inder Jit Sharma owns Flat No. A35 Allahabad Bank C.G.H.S., Mayur Kunj, Vasundhara, New Delhi, in regard to which a Will had been executed by Inder Jit Sharma in favour of respondent/complainant namely Geeta Mehta. It has been stated that possession of the flat had been given to Geeta Mehta. It has further been alleged that Inder Jit Sharma owns Flat No. A35 Allahabad Bank C.G.H.S., Mayur Kunj, Vasundhara, New Delhi, in regard to which a Will had been executed by Inder Jit Sharma in favour of respondent/complainant namely Geeta Mehta. It has been stated that possession of the flat had been given to Geeta Mehta. Geeta Mehta had got the flat renovated by spending about five lacs rupees and has been paying house tax etc. for the said property for the last about ten years. (b) In para 3 of the complaint it has been alleged that when mother of Geeta Mehta was executing Will in favour of Arun Sharma and Ushma Sharda, she had taken a promise from the said two persons that out of the property being given to the said two persons, they shall give one shop or rupees five lac to the respondent/complainant. Mother of the respondent/complainant died about eight years back, however, brother of the complainant and sister of the complainant above-named, neither gave the shop nor rupees five lacs. (c) It has been stated in the complaint that about 3-4 years back the complainant had some matrimonial dispute with her husband, on account of which father of the complainant namely Inder Jit Sharma gave copy of the Will in regard to Flat No. A-35 Allahabad Bank C.G.H.S., Mayur Kunj, Vasundhara, New Delhi alongwith other articles like keys of the flat, jewellery worth about rupees two lacs, cheque books and Rs. 40,000/-. The said articles were kept in the house of Ushma Sharda for safekeeping. The complainant served her father for about one year with respect. During the matrimonial discord of the complainant, Indra Jit Sharma was forced to live with his son namely Arun Sharma. (d) In para 6 of the complaint, it has been stated that when matrimonial discord of the complainant ended in December, 2012, the complainant asked her sister-Ushma Sharda to return the Will in regard to the flat and other articles. Ushma Sharda however stated that copy of the Will and other articles had been given to brother-Arun Sharma. When Ushma Sharda was confronted with the question as to why this had been done, the complainant was abused by Ushma Sharda. (e) In para 7 of the complaint, it has been alleged that when the complainant went to her brother-Arun Sharma to get back the Will etc. When Ushma Sharda was confronted with the question as to why this had been done, the complainant was abused by Ushma Sharda. (e) In para 7 of the complaint, it has been alleged that when the complainant went to her brother-Arun Sharma to get back the Will etc. in December, 2012, Arun Sharma and his wife Sangeeta Sharma gave dirty abuses to the complainant. Subsequently, complainant was told by her brother that he got Will of the flat executed in his own name by his father-Inder Jit Sharma. The complainant will not get the flat. The articles would not be returned to the complainant. (f) The complainant was not allowed to meet her father by Arun Sharma and Sangeeta Sharma. It has been alleged that the accused with deceitful intention got the Will of the flat executed in the name of the accused and had not returned other articles. It has been alleged that the complainant remains ill. The dispute with the husband has not been completely settled and complainant is living separately. The flat and articles are required for her use. It has been alleged that accused are threatening to sell the flat. The complainant is not allowed to meet her own father who stays in ill health, thereby the complainant has been caused physical and mental harassment and the complainant apprehends that she shall be got killed for the greed of moveable and immoveable property. (g) In para 16 of the complaint, it has been stated that her brother is financially very well off as he is an officer of State Bank of India. The sister-in-law namely Sangeeta Sharma is an employee in Physical Education and Sports Science University of Delhi and has sufficient moveable and immoveable property. Ushma Sharda (sister) is serving on a senior position in Tourism Business and is also well off and, yet, the moveable and immoveable property to which complainant is entitled, has been usurped. Possession of Flat No. A-35 Allahabad Bank C.G.H.S., Mayur Kunj, Vasundhara, New Delhi has been taken by the accused. It has been alleged that the complainant is entitled to relief under Sections 18,19, 20, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. 10. This Court considers that Inder Jit Sharma would be an independent person, being father of his children who are all parties to this lis, either as complainant or accused. 11. It has been alleged that the complainant is entitled to relief under Sections 18,19, 20, 22 of the Domestic Violence Act. 10. This Court considers that Inder Jit Sharma would be an independent person, being father of his children who are all parties to this lis, either as complainant or accused. 11. Inder Jit Sharma was directed to be impleaded as a party. Accordingly, Inder Jit Sharma has been impleaded as respondent No. 3. Inder Jit Sharma has appeared in person in Court and has also filed his affidavit through his counsel. Contents of the affidavit are required to be considered for adjudicating the issue. Paras 2 to 10 of the affidavit are extracted herebelow: “2. That I am the father of petitioner Arun Sharma and at present I am living with my son Arun Kumar Sharma quite happily with my own free will. 3. That I own flat No. A-35 in Allahabad Bank C.G.H.S. in Mayur Kunj (near Chilla Regulator) Delhi-96. 4. That Smt. Geeta Mehta (opposite party No. 2) is my daughter. She is married to Rajiv Kumar Mehta and they are residing at Flat No. A-205, Rail Kunj, Plot No. BS-7, Sector-3 Vasundhra, Ghaziabad (U.P.). Her husband Sri. Rajiv Kumar Mehta has retired from the post of Director from Indian Railways Institute of Electrical Engineering, Nasik Road. 5. That I and my son Arun Kumar Sharma are not in possession of any of her household articles or any other belongings. 6. That my daughter Smt. Geeta Mehta (opposite party No. 2) wants that I should transfer the ownership of my flat No. A-35 in Allahabad Bank C.G.H.S. in Mayur Kunj (near Chilla Regulator) Delhi-96 in her name. 7. That I do not want to transfer the ownership of my flat in her name. 8. That my daughter is bent upon to implicate my son Arun Sharma and his wife in a false case just to put pressure on me for fulfillment of her demand of transfer of the flat in her name. 9. That I have also lodge a complaint against her on 22.06.2014 at Seemapuri Police Station, Dilshad Garden Delhi-95 which has already been filed as Annexure No. 12 to this petition. 10. 9. That I have also lodge a complaint against her on 22.06.2014 at Seemapuri Police Station, Dilshad Garden Delhi-95 which has already been filed as Annexure No. 12 to this petition. 10. That my daughter Smt. Geeta Mehta has also lodged a fictitious FIR on 13.07.2014 against my son Arun Sharma, daughter in law Sangeeta Sharma and Ushma Sharda (Daughter) in order to further pressurize me for transferring the flat in her name. A copy of the FIR is being filed as Annexure No. 1 to this affidavit.” 12. The father namely Inder Jit Sharma has made it evident through affidavit that he has been living with Arun Sharma of his own free will and owns the flat in regard to which the impugned complaint has been filed by the complainant. It has been made explicit that complainant Geeta Mehta wants the father to transfer ownership of the flat in her own name. Inder Jit Sharma has no intention of transferring the flat in her name. So as to coerce Inder Jit Sharma (father), an aged person, to transfer the property, the son and his wife namely Sangeeta Sharma have been falsely been implicated in this case and an F.I.R. bearing No. 95 of 2014 under Sections 406, 504, 506, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Lucknow was lodged on 25.7.2014. 13. The affidavit sworn by the father also makes it evident that Geeta Mehta is married. Rajeev Kumar Mehta, husband of the complainant, is residing in Flat A-205, Rail Kunj, Plot No. BS-7, Sector-3 Vasundhra, Ghaziabad (U.P.). Rajeev Kumar Mehta has retired from the post of Director, Indian Railways Institute of Electrical Engineering, Nasik Road. 14. Inder Jit Sharma, when he appeared in Court stated that it is unfortunate that one of his children has initiated criminal proceedings for greed of his self-acquired property against her siblings. It has further been stated that it is unfortunate that father is being pressurized to either transfer the property in name of his daughter, or to execute a Will in favour of the daughter, or else the other family members would be prosecuted. 15. Facts available on record further indicate that complainant was married on 29.9.1979 with Rajeev Kumar Mehta i.e. over 30 years back and the marriage is still subsisting. 15. Facts available on record further indicate that complainant was married on 29.9.1979 with Rajeev Kumar Mehta i.e. over 30 years back and the marriage is still subsisting. Although in the complaint as noted above, it has been alleged that the complainant had some matrimonial dispute with her husband, however, it has no where been mentioned that the marriage has been dissolved or the complainant is divorced/destitute person. 16. Facts as noted above also indicate that Arun Sharma is living separately with his family and is supporting his father namely Inder Jit Sharma. 17. Likewise sister namely Ushma Sharda is living in her matrimonial home i.e. in 7097-Sector-B, Pocket-10, Vasant Kunj, Delhi and has nothing to do with the life of the complainant as individual or her matrimonial life. 18. Before considering whether the petitioners in three cases are liable to be proceeded against under Domestic Violence Act, relevant provisions of the said Act need to be considered. For the said purpose, Sections 2(a), 2(f) and 2(s) are extracted hereinbelow: “2(a). “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent; 2(f). “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family; 2(s). “shared household” means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or alongwith the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household.” 19. Domestic Violence Act has been enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who become victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family. 20. The complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act. Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act inheres that an “aggrieved person” as defined under Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act may present an application to the Magistrate to seek one or more reliefs under this Act against the “respondent”. 21. An “aggrieved person”, under the definition extracted above, would mean any woman who is, or has been, in a “domestic relationship” with the respondent and has been subjected to domestic violence by the “respondent”. “Domestic relationship” is also a term defined, as noted above, and means relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. 22. The complainant/respondent apparently claims that she is in ‘domestic relationship’ with the petitioner as a family member living together in a joint family or by consanguinity. Consanguinity would ordinarily mean relationship by descent from a common ancestor, kinship, close relationship. 23. Living in “Domestic relationship”, in isolation, is not sufficient to enable an ‘aggrieved person’ to invoke the penal provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. A person in domestic relationship is required to have a “shared household” with the accused. 24. "Shared household” has been defined, as noted above to mean a household where the person aggrieved lives or has lived at any stage in a “domestic relationship” either singly or alongwith the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent, or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the “aggrieved person” or the “respondent” or both have any right, title, interest or equity. Such household would include a household which may belong to joint family of which the respondent is member, irrespective of whether the respondent or aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. 25. The above-noted and defined terms are required to be considered vis-a-vis the petitioner-accused and respondent No. 2-complainant. Such household would include a household which may belong to joint family of which the respondent is member, irrespective of whether the respondent or aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. 25. The above-noted and defined terms are required to be considered vis-a-vis the petitioner-accused and respondent No. 2-complainant. Whether in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the respondent-complainant can be said to be in “domestic relationship” with the petitioner-accused? It has to be considered whether the complainant/aggrieved person has lived in “shared household” with the petitioner-accused? It is required to be considered whether the respondent-complainant can be considered to be an “aggrieved person” vis-a-vis her brother, sister-in-law and sister/petitioners? 26. The term “respondent” has been defined under Section 2 (q) of the Domestic Violence Act as under: “2(q) “respondent” means any adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act; Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage may also file a complaint against the relative of the husband or the male partner.” 27. At the first instance, this Court is required to see whether the respondent-complainant was living in domestic relationship with the petitioners. 28. Provisions of Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Domestic Violence Act indicate that proceedings can be initiated only against a “respondent”. “Respondent” in context of Domestic Violence Act is not a vague term as an opposite party, rather has been defined, as extracted above. It thus transpires that proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act could be filed only against male adult person who has been in domestic relationship with an aggrieved person. 29. The issue is required to be considered in context of definition of the term “domestic relationship”, as given in Section 2(f) of the Domestic Violence Act. The term provides of a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. The respondent-complainant claims that she had lived with the petitioner-accused in domestic relationship and, therefore, is entitled to file the impugned proceedings. 30. The respondent-complainant claims that she had lived with the petitioner-accused in domestic relationship and, therefore, is entitled to file the impugned proceedings. 30. The term “at any point of time” as it occurs in Section 2(f) of the Act came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.R. Batra and another v. Smt. Taruna Batra, AIR 2007 SC 1118. After considering the provisions of Sections 17(1) and 19(1) of the Domestic Violence Act in context of the said term, the following has been held in paras 23 to 29 of the judgment: “23. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra stated that the definition of shared household includes as household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship. He contended that since admittedly the respondent had lived in the property in question in the past, hence the said property is her shared household. 24. We cannot agree with the submission. 25. If the aforesaid submission is accepted, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband’s father, husband’s paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters. Nephews, nieces etc. If the interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, all these houses of the husband’s relatives will be shared households and the wife can well insist in living in the all these house of her husband’s relatives merely because she had stayed with her husband for some time in those houses in the past. Such a view would lead to chaos and would be absurd. 26. It is well-settled that any interpretation which leads to absurdity should not be accepted. 27. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra has relied upon Section 19(1)(f) of the Act and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband’s in-laws or other relatives. 28. 27. Learned counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra has relied upon Section 19(1)(f) of the Act and claimed that she should be given an alternative accommodation. In our opinion, the claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband’s in-laws or other relatives. 28. As regards Section 17(1) of the Act, in our opinion the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence in a shared household, and a ‘shared household’ would only mean the house belonging to or taken on rent by the husband, or the house which belongs to the joint family of which the husband is a member. The property in question in the present case neither belongs to Amit Batra nor was it taken on rent by him nor is it a joint family property of which the husband Amit Batra is a member. It is the exclusive property of appellant No. 2, mother of Amit Batra. Hence it cannot be called a ‘shared household’. 29. No doubt, the definition of ‘shared household’ in Section 2(s) of the Act is not very happily worded, and appears to be the result of clumsy drafting, but we have to give it an interpretation which is sensible and which does not lead to chaos in society.” 31. In view of the law as declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and as noted above, this Court is required to see whether the respondent-complainant has been living in domestic relationship with the petitioners, so as to entitle her to initiate proceedings against the petitioners/accused under the Domestic Violence Act. 32. At the cost of repetition, it needs to be specifically noticed that the respondent-complainant was married to Rajeev Kumar Mehta more than 30 years back and since then has been living in her matrimonial home. No material has been placed on record to indicate that the marriage has been dissolved, or that the respondent-complainant has been rendered destitute. Marriage is still subsisting. 33. Even if the claim of the respondent-complainant is considered to the effect that for sometime she lived with her brother Arun Sharma and his wife Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, even then it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination or interpretation of facts that the respondent-complainant has been living in domestic relationship with either of the accused. 33. Even if the claim of the respondent-complainant is considered to the effect that for sometime she lived with her brother Arun Sharma and his wife Smt. Sangeeta Sharma, even then it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination or interpretation of facts that the respondent-complainant has been living in domestic relationship with either of the accused. The respondent-complainant was married three decades back and ordinarily can be considered to be in domestic relationship only with her husband or relatives of her husband. In such circumstances, it is clearly evident that the respondent-complainant has not been living in domestic relationship with either of the accused and, therefore, the impugned complaint could not have been entertained at the instance of the respondent-complainant. 34. The penal provisions of the Domestic Violence Act are required to be invoked and applied in the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Once a girl living with her parents is married and settled in her own household in her matrimonial home, thereafter it cannot logically be pleaded after decades that because she lived in domestic relationship with her parents/siblings, she would continue to have a right to claim property under the Domestic Violence Act. This would result in chaotic results. If such an interpretation is allowed, a person could claim property from any of the relatives with whom she might have lived during her past life. 35. Considering the explanation of the term “at any point of time”, as given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the respondent-complainant cannot possibly be said to be living in domestic relationship with either of the petitioner-accused. On a bare perusal of the facts alleged in the complaint, even if facts alleged in the complaint are accepted as they are, even then it can be safely concluded that the respondent-complainant has not been in domestic relationship with either of the accused and hence the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed. 36. Perusal of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act makes it clear that merely because complainant is related to the accused would not per se invite the conclusion that the complainant has been living with the accused in “shared household”. Such an interpretation would lead to chaos and would give rise to filing of complaints in total abuse of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. 37. Such an interpretation would lead to chaos and would give rise to filing of complaints in total abuse of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act. 37. The respondent-complainant cannot also be accepted as “aggrieved person”, as defined under Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act for the reason that, as concluded above, the respondent-complainant has not been in domestic relationship with either of the accused. 38. The term “respondent” has also been defined under Section 2(q) of the Domestic Violence Act. Going by the definition of “Respondent”, proceedings could have been initiated under the Domestic Violence Act only against an “adult male person”. In the case in hand the respondent has also implicated her sister-in-law Sangeeta Sharma and her real sister Ushma Sharda. Thus, the complaint, per se, was not maintainable against the said two ladies, as they do not fall within the four-corners of definition of “Respondent”. 39. Perusal of the contents of the complaint establishes that the complaint has been filed only so as to claim ownership and possession of a flat owned by father of the complainant, certain cash and jewellery. It further indicates that the complainant is neither owner of the flat nor in possession of the flat. 40. Perusal of the contents of the complaint leaves no measure of doubt in the mind of the Court that it has been filed so as to harass the petitioners, so that Inder Jit Sharma, the father, transfers the property in name of the complainant. The complaint has been filed in clear abuse of the process of law and process of the Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, provisions of the Domestic Violence Act have been abused in filing the complaint, although the same is not maintainable as against the petitioners in these cases. 41. In view of the above, all the three petitions are allowed. 42. Impugned proceedings arising out of complaint No. 267 of 2014 (Geeta Mehta v. Arun Sharma and others) dated 5.02.2014 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘Domestic Violence Act’) pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Lucknow, are hereby quashed. 43. Let a copy of this order be placed on the files of Criminal Misc. Case (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Nos. 43. Let a copy of this order be placed on the files of Criminal Misc. Case (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Nos. 2002 of 2014, Smt. Sangeeta Sharma v. State of U.P. and another, and 2332 of 2014, Smt. Ushma Sharda v. The State of U.P. and others.