ORDER 1. The petitioners have filed the present criminal revision under section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 29.9.2020 passed by 4th ASJ, Dhar in CRA No.79/2019 whereby the order dated 25.4.2019 passed by JMFC, Dhar whereby the learned trial Court has taken cognizance against the petitioner under the provisions of section of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been affirmed. Hence, the present revision before this Court. 2. Facts of the case are that respondent No.1/wife was married with brother of the petitioners namely Rajkumar on 30.4.2006 in accordance with Hindu Customs and Rights. Thereafter, in the year 2007, Gouna was conducted by the parents of both the parties. As per the complainant/wife, for a period of one year, they keep the complainant well and thereafter, they have harassed for not giving birth to a male child and demanded Rs.5 Lacs. She further alleged that she has made a complaint earlier also as per the direction of the Court she started living with her in-laws and they abused her and demanded dowry at that time, articles of 1.5 lacs were given and an horse in dowry. In the year 2009, she gave birth to a girl child namely Aasha and in the year 2015 she gave birth to a son namely Akshat. After giving birth to a female child in the year 2009, the family members of the petitioners have harassed her and then she lodged an FIR which was registered bearing Crime No.97/2009. Respondent no.1 filed a complaint under the domestic violence against the present petitioner. The petitioners are sisters-in-law of respondent and respondent No.1 filed the complaint due to cruelty, harassment on behalf of respondents including the petitioner. Hence, the present petition before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Court below has failed to consider that respondent no.1 had no domestic relationship with the present petitioners and the petitioners are sisters-inlaw of respondent. Respondent No.1 has deceitfully attempted to make false story under domestic violence against the petitioners whereas the petitioners having no concerned with the day to day affair of family of the respondent. Petitioner No.1 is living at Shujalpur district Shajapur and petitioner No.2 is living at Village Dedla which is far way from their maternal home. Respondent No.1 has deceitfully attempted to make false story under domestic violence against the petitioners whereas the petitioners having no concerned with the day to day affair of family of the respondent. Petitioner No.1 is living at Shujalpur district Shajapur and petitioner No.2 is living at Village Dedla which is far way from their maternal home. Both the petitioners have got married even prior to the marriage of respondent with their brother. The learned Court below has taken the cognizance without considering the facts and circumstances of the case which is against the law. The Cognizance of the case seems to have been taken without application of mind by the learned trial Court. Hence, the learned trial Court has failed to consider the aspect of the matter and taken the cognizance contrary to the settled proportions of law and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court and the same is therefore liable to be quashed. 4. Counsel for respondent has opposed the prayer and supported the cognizance taken by the learned Court below. It is also submitted that soon after the marriage of the complainant, family members of the husband of respondent including the present petitioners have committed domestic violence upon the case. Hence, at the this stage, no case for interference is made out and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment of apex Court passed in the case of Shyamlal Devda and Others v. Parimala [ (2020) 3 SCC 14 ] and Ashish Dixit and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [ (2013) 4 SCC 176 ] wherein the Hon'ble apex Court has held that except the husband and parents-in-law, the respondent wife should not have been allowed impleadment of sundry persons. 6. Counsel for the petitioners further placed reliance over the judgments passed in the case of Neelu Chopra & Anr. v. Bharti 2009 (supp_CR.L>R. (SC) 765, Meenakshi Jatav (smt.) v. Dr. Smt Seema Sehar [ 2013(1) MPWN 107 ] and Suraj Singh Solank and Others v. Seema Solanki [ 2016 (1) MPWN 84 ]. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Undisputedly, respondent is legally wedded wife brother of the petitioners namely Rajkumar. Both the petitioners are sisters in law of respondent. Smt Seema Sehar [ 2013(1) MPWN 107 ] and Suraj Singh Solank and Others v. Seema Solanki [ 2016 (1) MPWN 84 ]. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Undisputedly, respondent is legally wedded wife brother of the petitioners namely Rajkumar. Both the petitioners are sisters in law of respondent. It is also clear that both the petitioners are living separate with the respective families and are living in their maternal homes. 9. On bare perusal of the complaints, it is crystal clear that neither any details of domestic violence caused by the petitioners are mentioned nor any specific role of the petitioners is mentioned by respondent. Even, earlier complaints were also lodged by the respondent against their inlaws, but she compromised the same and except the omnibus allegations, there is nothing on record against the present petitioners. 10. Domestic relationship is defined under section 2(f) which reads as under : "Domestic Relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in 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 joint family." 11. In view of the aforesaid, the provisions of Domestic Violence Act shall take place only when the person lived together in 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 joint family. 12. In the case of Vijay Verma v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., reported in 2010 (118) DRJ 520 , it is held as under : 5. Filing of a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act by the petitioner taking shelter of domestic relationship and domestic violence needs to be considered so that this Act is not misused to settle property disputes. Domestic relationship is defined under the Act in section 2(f) as under : "(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." 6. A perusal of this provision makes it clear that domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved person had lived together with the respondent in a shared household. This living together can be either soon before filing of petition or 'at any point of time'. The problem arises with the meaning of phrase "at any point of time". Does that mean that living together at any stage in the past would give right to a person to become aggrieved person to claim domestic relationship? I consider that "at any point of time" under the Act only means where an aggrieved person has been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right but for some reason the aggrieved person has to leave the house temporarily and when she returns, she is not allowed to enjoy her right to live in the property. However, "at any point of time" cannot be defined as "at any point of time in the past" whether the right to live survives or not. For example if there is a joint family where father has several sons with daughtersin-law living in a house and ultimately sons, one by one or together, decide that they should live separate with their own families and they establish separate household and start living with their respective families separately at dif erent places; can it be said that wife of each of the sons can claim a right to live in the house of father-in-law because at one point of time she along with her husband had lived in the shared household. If this meaning is given to the shared household then the whole purpose of Domestic Violence Act shall stand defeated. Where a family member leaves the shared household to establish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act on the basis of domestic relationship. Domestic relationship comes to an end once the son along with his family moved out of the joint family and established his own household or when a daughter gets married and establishes her own household with her husband. Domestic relationship comes to an end once the son along with his family moved out of the joint family and established his own household or when a daughter gets married and establishes her own household with her husband. Such son, daughter, daughter-in-law, son-inlaw, if they have any right in the property say because of coparcenary or because of inheritance, such right can be claimed by an independent civil suit and an application under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act cannot be filed by a person who has established his separate household and ceased to have a domestic relationship. Domestic relationship continues so long as the parties live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared household. Only a compelled or temporarily going out by aggrieved person shall fall in phrase 'at any point of time', say, wife has gone to her parents house or to a relative or some other female member has gone to live with her some relative, and, all her articles and belongings remain within the same household and she has not left the household permanently, the domestic relationship continues. However, where the living together has been given up and a separate (Gurmukhdas Salwani and others v. Smt. Mitali Salwani) household is established and belongings are removed, domestic relationship comes to an end and a relationship of being relatives of each other survives. This is very normal in families that a person whether, a male or a female attains self suf iciency after education or otherwise and takes a job lives in some other city or country, enjoys life there, settles home there. He cannot be said to have domestic relationship with the persons whom he left behind. His relationship that of a brother and sister, father and son, father and daughter, father and daughter-in-law etc survives but the domestic relationship of living in a joint household would not survive & comes to an end. 7. This meaning of domestic relationship has sense when we come to definition of domestic violence and the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act is to give remedy to the aggrieved persons against domestic violence. The domestic violence can take place only when one is living in shared household with the respondents. 7. This meaning of domestic relationship has sense when we come to definition of domestic violence and the purpose of the Act. The purpose of the Act is to give remedy to the aggrieved persons against domestic violence. The domestic violence can take place only when one is living in shared household with the respondents. The acts of abuses, emotional or economic, physical or sexual, verbal or nonverbal if committed when one is living in the same shared household constitute domestic violence. However, such acts of violence can be committed even otherwise also when one is living separate. When such acts of violence take place when one is living separate, these may be punishable under different provisions of IPC or other penal laws, but, they cannot be covered under Domestic Violence Act. One has to make distinction between violence committed on a person living separate in a separate household and the violence committed on a person living in the shared household. Only violence committed by a person while living in the shared household can constitute domestic violence. A person may be threatening another person 100 miles away on telephone or by messages etc. This may amount to an of ence under IPC, but, this cannot amount to domestic violence. Similarly, emotional blackmail, economic abuse and physical abuse can take place even when persons are living miles away. Such abuses are not covered under Domestic Violence Act but they are liable to be punished under Penal laws. Domestic Violence is a violence which is committed when parties are in domestic relationship, sharing same household and sharing all the household goods with an opportunity to commit violence. 13. In the case in hand, respondent/wife never lived with the petitioners, there is no specific allegations against the petitioners to cause any abuse, mentally or physically or any demand of dowry, she never stayed together with petitioners in a shared household and no domestic relationship exists between them, hence, in view of the aforesaid, the domestic relations with the petitioners is not established with respondent/wife. Earlier, complaints were lodged against her-in-laws is however on record, but if the demand of dowry and harassment is concerned, both the petitioners have not played any active role in the alleged offence said to have been committed with the respondent as the petitioners are married prior to the married of the respondent. Earlier, complaints were lodged against her-in-laws is however on record, but if the demand of dowry and harassment is concerned, both the petitioners have not played any active role in the alleged offence said to have been committed with the respondent as the petitioners are married prior to the married of the respondent. The learned Court below has erred in not considering the each and every facts and circumstances of the case and the facts while taking the cognizance qua the petitioners. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petition is liable to be allowed and the orders impugned are hereby set aside. 14. Consequently, both the orders dated 29.9.2020 passed by 4th ASJ, Dhar in CRA No.79/2019 and the order dated 25.4.2019 passed by JMFC, Dhar taking cognizance against the petitioners under the provisions of section 12 of Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are hereby set aside. The entire proceedings pending before the JMFC, Dhar qua the petitioners stands set aside. 15. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below concerned for necessary information and action. 16. Resultantly, CRR stands allowed and disposed off. 17. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.