JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioners in the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have thrown challenge to the maintainability of an application filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short "Act of 2005") filed by the respondent 1 herein besides against the proforma respondents herein as also the petitioners herein being respondents 4 and 5 in the aforesaid application. 2. The facts emerging from the record would reveal that the respondent 1 herein filed an application under Section 12 read with Sections 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Act of 2005 against the proforma respondents herein amongst them Davinder Singh being her father-in-law and Namrata Chambyal as her mother-in-law impleading the petitioners herein as respondents 4 and 5 therein in the said complaint besides one Krishan Devi, widow of one Naseeb Singh alleging therein in the said application that she was married to one Koushik Singh Chambyal S/o proforma respondents 2 and 3 herein in the year 2022 with no issue born in the said wedlock and that she has been working with her husband in a private company and her father-in-law is working in the police department and that at the time of entering into marital wedlock with the above named son of the proforma respondents 2 and 3 herein, she brought gold and silver ornaments with her and started living with the proforma respondents 2 and 3 herein along with her husband in their residential house situated at Roop Nagar, Jammu, however, after some time, the said respondents started insulting her and committing physical assault upon her inasmuch as at the instigation of the respondents 3 to 5 therein in the aforesaid application who supported the illegal activities of the proforma respondents 2 and 3 herein and never tried to take corrective measures and that even the respondents 4 and 5 being the petitioners herein used to threaten and pressurize the respondent 1 herein by subjecting her to physical and mental cruelty in order to have her thrown out from her matrimonial house and that the respondents 4 and 5 being the petitioners herein had taken money from her and her husband as loan and did not return back the same to her and instead started threatening her of dire consequences. 3. 3. The petitioners herein have challenged the maintainability of the aforesaid application filed by the respondent 1 herein on the grounds urged in the petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The counsel for the petitioners while making his submissions in line with the contentions raised in the petition would contend that the applicant/respondent 1 herein in the application filed under the Act of 2005 before the court below has failed to indicate that the provisions of the Act of 2005 were attracted qua the allegations leveled against the petitioners herein, who did not fall within the definition of "respondent" as defined in Section 2(q) of the Act of 2005 and that the court below, without considering this fundamental aspect, wrongly entertained the application, assumed jurisdiction and proceeded thereon without any competence against the petitioners herein. On the contrary, counsel for the respondent 1 herein while opposing the submission of the counsel for the petitioners would contend that the instant petition is not maintainable under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the petitioners were required to have approached the Court below in the first instance and to raise before it all the pleas which are being raised in the instant petition. 5. 5. Before proceeding to address to the issues involved in the instant petition, it would be pertinent to refer to the following provisions of the Act of 2005 being relevant herein : Section 2(a) of the Act of 2005 defines "aggrieved person" and reads as under : “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" and reads as under : “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.” Section 2(q) defines "respondent" and reads as under : “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 a marriage may also file a complaint against the relative of the husband or the male partner]. Section 2(s) provides "shared household" and reads as under : “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.” Section 3 defines "domestic violence" and reads as under : “3. Definition of domestic violence.- For the purposes of this Act, any act, omission or commission or conduct of the respondent shall constitute domestic violence in case it- (a) harms or injures or endangers the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, of the aggrieved person or tends to do so and includes causing physical abuse, sexual abuse, verbal and emotional abuse and economic abuse; or (b) harasses, harms, injures or endangers the aggrieved person with a view to coerce her or any other person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any dowry or other property or valuable security; or (c) has the effect of threatening the aggrieved person or any person related to her by any conduct mentioned in clause (a) or clause (b); or (d) otherwise injures or causes harm, whether physical or mental, to the aggrieved person. Explanation I.- For the purposes of this section,- (i) "physical abuse" means any act or conduct which is of such a nature as to cause bodily pain, harm, or danger to life, limb, or health or impair the health or development of the aggrieved person and includes assault, criminal intimidation and criminal force; (ii) "sexual abuse" includes any conduct of a sexual nature that abuses, humiliates, degrades or otherwise violates the dignity of woman; (iii) "verbal and emotional abuse" includes- (a) insults, ridicule, humiliation, name calling and insults or ridicule specially with regard to not having a child or a male child; and (b) repeated threats to cause physical pain to any person in whom the aggrieved person is interested. (iv) "economic abuse" includes- (a) deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which the aggrieved person is entitled under any law or custom whether payable under an order of a court or otherwise or which the aggrieved person requires out of necessity including, but not limited to, household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related to the shared household and maintenance; (b) disposal of household effects, any alienation of assets whether movable or immovable, valuables, shares, securities, bonds and the like or other property in which the aggrieved person has an interest or is entitled to use by virtue of the domestic relationship or which may be reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person; and (c) prohibition or restriction to continued access to resources or facilities which the aggrieved person is entitled to use or enjoy by virtue of the domestic relationship including access to the shared household. Explanation II.- For the purpose of determining whether any act, omission, commission or conduct of the respondent constitutes" domestic violence" under this section, the overall facts and circumstances of the case shall be taken into consideration.” 6. Thus, a person to maintain an application/complaint has to be firstly an aggrieved person in domestic relationship living or having lived in a share household and subjected to domestic violence by a respondent as defined in Section 2(q) of the Act of 2005. 7. As has been noticed in the preceding paras, the applicant/respondent 1 herein in the application filed before the Court below indisputably has nowhere contended that she was living in a domestic relationship or in a shared household with the respondents 4 and 5/petitioners herein at any point of time before filing the application in question. 8. 7. As has been noticed in the preceding paras, the applicant/respondent 1 herein in the application filed before the Court below indisputably has nowhere contended that she was living in a domestic relationship or in a shared household with the respondents 4 and 5/petitioners herein at any point of time before filing the application in question. 8. A court dealing with an application/complaint filed under the provisions of the Act of 2005 in the first instance, upon entertaining the same, is supposed to examine the contents of the application, apply mind to the facts detailed out in the application and thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2005 fundamentally to satisfy itself that the applicant qualifies to be a "person aggrieved" and that the action sought against the respondents therein falls within the ambit of the definition of "respondent" as provided under section 2(q) of the Act of 2005. 9. Coming back to the case in hand and as has been noticed in the preceding paras, the applicant/respondent 1 herein has alleged against the respondents/petitioners herein is that they instigated the respondents 1 and 2/proforma respondents 2 and 3 herein being father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent 1 herein and the said respondents/petitioners herein in fact have had taken a sum of money as loan from the applicant/respondent 1 herein and her husband and upon making a demand for return of the same, the said respondents 4 & 5/petitioners herein threatened the applicant/respondent 1 herein. Under these circumstances, it is manifest from a closer examination and perusal of the application filed by the applicant/respondent 1 herein before the court below that the respondents 4 and 5 /petitioners herein do not qualify to be "respondents" as defined in Section 2(q) of the Act of 2005 and the application filed under the provisions of the Act of 2005 by the applicant/respondent 1 herein against the petitioners herein per se is misconceived and not maintainable thus, warranting exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court in the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in case titled as “Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil” reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 wherein the Apex Court inter alia held that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it, within the bounds of their authority and in order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and Courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested in them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them as also the High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of tribunals and Courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 10. Viewed thus, what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly same is allowed and consequently the impugned application filed by the applicant/respondent 1 herein under Section 12 of the Act of 2005 is dismissed insofar as it pertains to the respondents 4 and 5 being petitioners herein. The court below, however, shall proceed in the matter against rest of the respondents in accordance with law. 11. Connected application(s) also stands disposed of accordingly.