JUDGMENT Sabina, J —Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the orders dated 13.10.2017 and 14.11.2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 1 has filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') . Petitioner has also been arrayed as an accused. Petitioner is the married sister-in-law of respondent No. 1. Petitioner got married on 09.05.2005, whereas, respondent No. 1 got married on 18.11.2013. Petitioner is residing in her matrimonial home in district Rajsamand after the date of her marriage, whereas, respondent No. 1 resides in her matrimonial home after her marriage at Ajmer. Thus, the petitioner was residing in a different district in the State of Rajasthan than the respondent No. 1. Hence, proceedings qua the petitioner was liable to be dropped as she was not living in the shared household of respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has opposed the petition. 3. Admittedly, petitioner is the married Sister-in-law of respondent No. 1. Petitioner had got married much before respondent No. 1 got married to the brother of the petitioner. Petitioner is admittedly residing in her matrimonial home. Merely because the petitioner comes to visit her parents at Ajmer does not mean that she was also residing in the shared household. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, proceedings lodged against the petitioner under the Act would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. 5. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Proceedings qua the petitioner in the complaint filed by respondent no. 1 under Section 12 of the Act are dropped.