ORDER 1. By this application under section 482 of the CrPC, the applicants are aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Mhow, District Indore in MJC No.119/2013. 2. Counsel for the applicants vehemently urged the fact that the applicants are unnecessarily being roped in by the respondent /wife-Seema Solanki. Counsel submitted that the applicants Suraj Singh/father-in-law, Tejubai/mother-in-law, Kavita Chawda/sister-in-law are the family members who are not members of the same shared household and have been falsely implicated. Counsel however, candidly admitted that the husband-applicant No.3/Jaswant Solanki was living separately with the respondent /wife-Seema and the expenses were also borne by the wife's father. Counsel submitted that the trial Court had erred in considering the provisions of section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and implicated the applicants and they have to unnecessarily undergo rigors when there was ample evidence on record to indicate that they were not members of the shared household. More so she submitted that applicant No.4/Kavita Chawda was married sister-in-law and unnecessarily being put to embarrassment and trouble to attend the Court proceedings though she has nothing to do with the mater. Counsel placed reliance on Meenakshi Jatav and others v. Seema Sehar (DR) another 2013(I) MPWN 107 =[II (2013) DMC 622 (MP)] to indicate that this Court has also held that no specific allegations were made against the petitioners and the petitioners were sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the respondent/wife and living separately and marriage has also taken place much before the marriage of the respondent /wife, then the relief under sections 19, 20 and 22 of the Act cannot be granted and hence the proceedings pending before the Court of JMFC were quashed and prayed that same relief be extended to the present applicant also. 3. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent /wife submitted that the applicant No.3/husband was living with the wife, even if the contentions are considered regarding separate resident, it was a matter of evidence to consider is whether the father-in-law and mother-in-law are separate in residence and mess and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. 3. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent /wife submitted that the applicant No.3/husband was living with the wife, even if the contentions are considered regarding separate resident, it was a matter of evidence to consider is whether the father-in-law and mother-in-law are separate in residence and mess and prayed for dismissal of the application. 4. On considering the above and relying the matter of S.R. Batra v. Smt. Tarun Batra [136 (2007)DLT 1 (SC)], whereby the apex Court had held that the wife, is only entitled to claim any protection or maintenance under the Act, in a shared household in which husband has a share and “a shared household” would only mean house belonging to or taken on rent by husband, or house which belongs to joint family of which husband is a member and in the present case counsel for the respondent /wife was unable to demonstrate that the applicant No.4/Kavita Chawda was living in the shared household, however, he candidly admitted that the applicant No.4 was married sister-in-law and lived separately. In this view of the matter, I find that the proceedings before the JMFC, Mhow, Indore regarding applicant No.4 are required to be quashed and are hereby quashed. However, without commenting anything on the merits of the matter regarding the other applicants it is directed that let the proceedings in the Court below continue, since it would be premature at this stage to hold that the other applicants are not members of a shared household in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 5. With the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned herein-above.