JUDGMENT : Rohit B. Deo, J. The applicant-Madhusudan Murarilal Sharma is questioning the tenability of the proceedings instituted by non-applicant Smt. Jyotsna Nilesh Sharma under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act ("DV Act" for short). The objection to the tenability of the proceedings is rejected by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court 1, Khamgaon, by order dated 05-2-2014 and Criminal Revision 46/2014 preferred by the applicant is dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon by judgment dated 08-10-2014. 2. Heard Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri M.K. Pathan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant 2/State of Maharashtra. None appears on behalf of non-applicant 1 Smt. Jyostna Nilesh Sharma. 3. Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar, learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that the complaint under the D.V. Act is an abuse of the process of law. This submission is predicated on the assertion that the complainant and the present applicant were/are not in "domestic relationship" within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act. The extension of the said submission is that even if the averments in the complaint are taken at face value, no case of domestic violence is made out. 4. In the context of the submission canvassed, it would be necessary to peruse the complaint dated 15-10-2011 which is forwarded by the complainant Smt. Jyotsna to the Superintendent of Police, Women's Assistance Cell (Police), Buldhana. The said complaint was forwarded by the officer to the Naib-Tahsildar who submitted report under Section 5(1) and (2) and Section 17(3) of the D.V. Act. The said report was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court 1, Buldhana and Miscellaneous Criminal Case 48/2012 was registered under the provisions of the D.V. Act. The applicant herein is the cousin brother of Shri Nilesh Sharmathe husband of the complainant Jyotsna. The complaint forwarded by Smt. Jyotsna to the concerned officer reads thus : "Shri Lakshmi Gautam, IPS, Superintendent of Police (The State Assistance for Violence against Women) & Women's Assistance Cell (Police), Buldhana (M.S.) Respected Sir, Reg. : Wrongful confinement of helpless woman-request for action under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Rules 2006 thereunder-request for SOS help. : Wrongful confinement of helpless woman-request for action under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Rules 2006 thereunder-request for SOS help. With great agony and pain, I wish to invite your kind attention towards the physical and mental agony I am suffering for more than one and half year due to the torture by the relatives of my in-laws. I married to Mr. Nilesh K. Sharma, and staying at the second floor of the ancestral property of the in-laws whose relatives are staying at first and ground floor from where the entrance is provided to my floor. For last one and half years, my husband's cousin brother Mr. Madhusudhan M. Sharma (address as below) is torturing me physically and mentally. I am also put in wrongful confinement by closing the entrance of my rooms and I am unable to move out even for medical treatment. My husband has already approached various authorities to save me out of the wrongful confinement however, inspite of initiative by police authorities etc. and filing several FIRs against the accused person Mr. Madhusudhan, he is not ready to abide by the law of land nor obey the directives of the Police Authorities. Moreover, the accused person and his supporters impersonated to the MSEB mala fidely and got the electricity connection of my house disconnected by hook or crook and I am staying in dark rooms for more than a year. It may be noted that, several number of criminal cases have been filed by the Police against the accused person for indulging into criminal activities as under : Sr.No. FIR No. & Date U/s. Of I.P.C. Court case No. Name of Party 01 165/08, 10/8/08 341, 143, 323 & 506 808/2008 State Vs. Adv. Madhusudhan Sharma and Ors. 02 106/10 26­6­2010 457, 380, 447, 448, 143, 147, 149, 323 & 341 107/2010 State Vs. Adv. Madhusudhan Sharma & Ors. 03 114/10, 08­7­2010 341, 342, 343, 448 & 427 114/2010 State vs. Adv. Madhusudhan Sharma & Ors. 04 147/10 10­10­ 2010 147, 148, 149, 324, 504, 506 & 427 56/11 State of Adv. Madhusudhan Sharma & Ors. 05 107/11 02­8­2011 341, 343 & 143 Yet to get State Vs. Adv. Madhusudhan Sharma & Ors. 06 113/11 13­8­2011 341 Yet to get State Vs. Adv. Madhusudhan Sharma & Ors. Madhusudhan Sharma & Ors. 04 147/10 10­10­ 2010 147, 148, 149, 324, 504, 506 & 427 56/11 State of Adv. Madhusudhan Sharma & Ors. 05 107/11 02­8­2011 341, 343 & 143 Yet to get State Vs. Adv. Madhusudhan Sharma & Ors. 06 113/11 13­8­2011 341 Yet to get State Vs. Adv. Madhusudhan Sharma & Ors. I may mention that I am suffering from critical diseases and want to take treatment in a good hospital however, I am unable to move out of the home due to the wrongful confinement by the accused person and his supporters. If I am not treated properly, anything may be happened to me at any time. If any such thing happens, my small children will loose their mother and in that case, I fear that my children will be killed by them. I request you good self to take immediate action under inter alia Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and Rules 2008 thereunder against the accused person who is a habitual offender in the eyes of law and a nuisance in the society committing heinous crimes against woman and helpless and put him behind the bar or extern him so that peace loving citizens and woman can live peacefully." 5. The substratum of the complaint is that Smt. Jyotsna and her husband Shri Nilesh Sharma are residing on the second floor of the ancestral building, and the applicant Shri Madhusudan Sharma is residing on the ground and first floor. The allegation in the complaint is that the applicant Shri Madhusudan Sharma is harassing Smt. Jyotsna physically and mentally by closing the entrance to her residence. 6. The short question which falls for adjudication is whether on the face of the averments in the complaint, could cognizance have been taken under the provisions of the D.V. Act. The D.V. Act is enacted to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 2(a) defines "aggrieved person" thus : "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." Section 2(f) defines "domestic relationship" thus : "2(f). Section 2(a) defines "aggrieved person" thus : "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." Section 2(f) defines "domestic relationship" thus : "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." Sub-section (s) of Section 2 defines "shared household" thus : "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 along with 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." 7. Domestic violence is elaborately defined in Section 3. The power and duties of protection officers, service providers etc. are spelt out in Chapter III comprising Sections 4 to 11. Chapter IV spells out the procedure for obtaining orders of reliefs. Section 12(1) provides that an aggrieved person or a protection officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act. Sub-section (2) provides that the relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation of damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the non-applicant. Sub-section (2) provides that the relief sought for under sub-section (1) may include a relief for issuance of an order for payment of compensation or damages without prejudice to the right of such person to institute a suit for compensation of damages for the injuries caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the non-applicant. Section 17 provides that every woman in a domestic relationship shall have the right to reside in the shared household, whether or not she has any right, title or beneficial interest in the same and that she shall not be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by the respondent save in accordance with the procedure established by law. Section 18 provides for protection orders which may be issued by the Magistrate if he prima facie satisfied that domestic violence has taken place or is likely to take place. Section 19 provides for residence orders and reads thus : "Residence orders-(1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may, on being satisfied that domestic violence has taken place, pass a residence order- (a) restraining the respondent from dispossessing or in any other manner disturbing the possession of the aggrieved person from the shared household, whether or not the respondent has a legal or equitable interest in the shared household; (b) directing the respondent to remove himself from the shared household; (c) restraining the respondent or any of his relatives from entering any portion of the shared household in which the aggrieved person resides. (d) restraining the respondent from alienating or disposing off the shared household or encumbering the same; (e) restraining the respondent from renouncing his rights in the shared household except with the leave of the Magistrate; or (f) directing the respondent to secure same level of alternate accommodation for the aggrieved person as enjoyed by her in the shared household or to pay rent for the same, if the circumstance so require: Provided that no order under clause (b) shall be passed against any person who is a woman. (2) The Magistrate may impose any additional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person. (2) The Magistrate may impose any additional conditions or pass any other direction which he may deem reasonably necessary to protect or to provide for the safety of the aggrieved person or any child of such aggrieved person. (3) The Magistrate may require from the respondent to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for preventing the commission of domestic violence. (4) An order under sub-section (3) shall be deemed to be an order under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and shall be dealt with accordingly. (5) While passing an order under sub-section (1), sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), the court may also pass an order directing the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station to give protection to the aggrieved person or to assist her or the person making an application on her behalf in the implementation of the order. (6) While making an order sub-section (1), the Magistrate may impose on the respondent obligations relating to the discharge of rent and other payments, having regard to the financial needs and resources of the parties. (7) The Magistrate may direct the officer-in-charge of the police station in whose jurisdiction the Magistrate has been approached to assist in the implementation of the protection order. (8) The Magistrate may direct the respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled to." Sections 20 to 22 deal with the monetary reliefs, custody orders and compensation orders which may be granted issued in the proceedings under the D.V. Act. Statement of objects and reasons of the D.V. Act read thus : "Domestic violence is undoubtedly a human rights issue and serious deterrent to development. The Vienna Accord of 1994 and the Beijing Declaration and the Platform for Action (1995) have acknowledged this. The United Nations Committee on Convention of Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in its General Recommendation No.XII (1989) has recommended that State parties should act to protect women against violence of any kind specifically that occurring within the family. 2. The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain. Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety. 3. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. 4. The Bill, inter alia, seeks to prove for the following (i) It covers those women who are or have been in a relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption. In addition, relationship with family members living together as a joint family are also included. Even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single woman, or living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the proposed legislation. However, whereas the Bill enables the wife or the female living in a relationship in the nature of marriage to file a complaint under the proposed enactment against any relative of the husband or the male partner, it does not enable any female relative of the husband or the male partner to file a complaint against the wife or the female partner. (ii) It defines the expression "domestic violence" to include actual abuse or threat or abuse that is physical, sexual, verbal, emotional or economic. Harassment by way of unlawful dowry demands to the woman or her relatives would also be covered under this definition. (iii) It provides for the rights of women to secure housing. It also provides for the right of a woman to reside in her matrimonial home or shared household, whether or not she has any title or rights in such home or household. This right is secured by a residence order, which is passed by the Magistrate. (iii) It provides for the rights of women to secure housing. It also provides for the right of a woman to reside in her matrimonial home or shared household, whether or not she has any title or rights in such home or household. This right is secured by a residence order, which is passed by the Magistrate. (iv) It empowers the Magistrate to pass protection orders in favour of the aggrieved person to prevent the respondent from aiding or committing an act of domestic violence or any other specified act, entering a workplace or any other place frequented by the aggrieved person, attempting to communicate with her, isolating any assets used by both the parties and causing violence to the aggrieved person, her relatives or others who provide her assistance from the domestic violence. (v) It provides for appointment of Protection Officers and registration of non-governmental organizations as service providers for providing assistance to the aggrieved person with respect to her medical examination, obtaining legal aid, safe shelter, etc." 8. The D.V. Act intends to cover those women who are or have been relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived together in a shared household and are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage or adoption. The relationship with family members who live together as a joint family are also included. The intention of the Legislature was certainly not to provide a forum and remedy to every aggrieved woman irrespective of the circumstances, irrespective of the relationship with the offender or the nature of grievance. The statutory scheme reveals that the provisions of the D.V. Act can be invoked only by an aggrieved person who is defined to mean 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. The jurisdictional facts which are precondition to taking cognizance are (a) the woman must be, or must have been in a domestic relationship with the respondent, and (b) she must have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. The jurisdictional facts which are precondition to taking cognizance are (a) the woman must be, or must have been in a domestic relationship with the respondent, and (b) she must have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent. Domestic relationship as statutorily defined presupposes that the respondent and the complainant lived or have lived together in a shared householder which is defined to mean a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent. The household could be owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person or the respondent or owned or tenanted by either of them and could belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member. Whether the aggrieved person or respondent has any right, title or interest in the shared household is immaterial. 9. The seminal issue is whether the complainant Smt. Jyotsna is or has been in a domestic relationship with the applicant herein who is the cousin brother of smt. Jyotsna's husband. Even if the averments in the complaint are accepted at face value, it is apparent that the applicant and Smt. Jyotsna were not in domestic relationship. At no point of time did the applicant and Smt. Jyotsna live together in a shared household. Even if it is assumed, as is averred in the complaint, that the applicant and Smt. Jyotsna reside in the same building on different floors, by no stretch of imagination can it be said that they lived together in a shared household. 10. The material which is produced by the applicant would suggest that there are several disputes between the family of the applicant and the family of the husband of the complainant Smt. Jyotsna. The issue of ingress and egress, which is the only issue raised in the complaint under the D.V. Act, appears to be subjudice. Be that as it may, the learned Counsel Mrs. R.S. Sirpurkar would submit that the institution of the proceedings under the D.V. Act is with an oblique motive and a fall out of the strained relationship and the inter se dispute which is subjudice. It is not necessary to make any decisive observation on the submission that the complaint under the D.V. Act is lodged mala fide. R.S. Sirpurkar would submit that the institution of the proceedings under the D.V. Act is with an oblique motive and a fall out of the strained relationship and the inter se dispute which is subjudice. It is not necessary to make any decisive observation on the submission that the complaint under the D.V. Act is lodged mala fide. Suffice it to hold that reading the complaint as a whole the jurisdictional facts which alone would clothe the learned Magistrate with the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the proceedings are not established. Even accepting the averments in the complaint, it cannot be said that the complainant Smt. Jyotsna is or was in a domestic relationship with the applicant, who is the cousin brother of Smt. Jyotsna's husband. In this view of the matter, the application deserves to be allowed. 11. The proceedings in Miscellaneous Criminal Application 48/2012 including the order dated 05-2-2014 rejecting the objection to the tenability of the complaint are quashed. 12. The application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (1), which reads thus: "1. Allow this application and quash and aside the order dated 05-2-2014 vide Exhibit 19, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Khamgaon in Miscellaneous Criminal Application 48/2012 at Annexure-VII and quash and set aside order dated 08-10-2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Court, Khamgaon vide Exhibit 13 in Criminal Revision 46/2014 at Annexure-IX."