ORDER : This is a petition filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of Annexure A1 and all further proceedings against them in M.C. No.37/2023 on the files of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3. 3. The petitioners are respondents 2 to 4 in M.C. No.37/2023 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that despite having no allegations of domestic violence or cruelty, the petitioners, who are the husband of the aggrieved person, brother's wife and another brother got arrayed as respondents. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, only when there are allegations attracting domestic violence, petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('DV Act' for short hereinafter) is maintainable against the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision reported in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [ (2007) 4 SCC 511 ] and the conclusions therein extracted in page Nos.14 and 15 of this Crl.M.C. to contend that mere trivial irritations, quarrels normal wear and tear of the marital life which happens day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. Going by the decision, it appears that the case dealt with by the Apex Court is a case wherein divorce was sought on the ground of cruelty and not a case dealing with the provisions of the DV Act. He also relied on the decision quoted in page Nos.9, 10, 11 and 12 of this Crl.M.C. to contend that omnibus allegations against all relatives of the husband cannot be taken at face value when in normal course it may only be the husband or at best his parents who may be accused of demanding dowry or causing cruelty. To check abuse of over implication, clear supporting materials is needed to proceed against other relatives of a husband. While considering the essentials to constitute offence under Section 498A and also while considering impleadment of the relatives of the husband without sufficient materials in a criminal case alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 6. While considering the essentials to constitute offence under Section 498A and also while considering impleadment of the relatives of the husband without sufficient materials in a criminal case alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since nothing stated in the complaint so as to proceed against the petitioners herein, the same would require quashment. 7. Repelling these contentions, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that going by the allegations in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the petition (Original M.C.), the role of the petitioners by disturbing the peaceful living of the 2nd respondent in the shared house could be seen. Therefore, the matter would require trial. 8. Further, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 pointed out the allegations in paragraph Nos.9 and 11 in the petition as extracted hereunder:- “9. The 1st respondent did not care about any of the needs of the petitioners and he always neglected the needs of the petitioners till this time. The 2nd respondent said to the sister of the petitioner that their minor daughter is the hindrance for them to divorce the first petitioner. The respondents 2nd & 3rd have an evil eye on the income of the first respondent. The 2nd & 3rd respondents and their family living with the income of the first respondent. According to the first respondent each time the petitioners should convince the 2nd and 3rd respondents and should meet through the 2nd & 3rd respondents. xxxx xxxx xxxx 11. Several occasions the respondents kicked us from the shared household. Each time after mediation they allowed us to enter the house. Finally in the last October when the first respondent was on leave he took the petitioners to the house of the sister of the petitioner telling the petitioner only as a visit, by believing that version the petitioner went with him. After sometime the 2nd respondent came to the house and quarreled on the ornaments of the petitioner. The first respondent left the petitioners there and went along to the shared household by saying that her fate will decide after the 4th respondent's arrival from Saudi Arabia. The Co brother along with the petitioner went to the shared household to take the dress of petitioners, since the petitioners have no dress for change. The first respondent left the petitioners there and went along to the shared household by saying that her fate will decide after the 4th respondent's arrival from Saudi Arabia. The Co brother along with the petitioner went to the shared household to take the dress of petitioners, since the petitioners have no dress for change. The petitioners wait for the response of the respondents for 9 days. Nothing has been heard from the respondents for 9 days so the petitioners came by auto to the shared household. When they reached they saw the first respondent watching the TV and he shouted at petitioners that since he didn't like the petitioners arrival without the consent of 4th respondent. Then the 2nd respondent came to the house and asked the petitioner to leave the house. The petitioner was not amenable to that since the 2nd respondent is not the person to make orders to the petitioner. So the 2nd respondent took the first respondent along with him and arrived after a week when the 4th respondent arrived from Saudi Arabia. Hence there are chances for the repetition of the incident in future.” 9. While alleviating the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, reference to the terms 'an aggrieved person' as defined under Section 2(a), 'domestic relationship' under Section 2(f), 'domestic violence' as defined under Section 3 read with 2(a) and 'domestic violence' under Section 2(g) of the DV Act are essential. The same are as under:- Section 2(a) - an “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) - “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(g) - “domestic violence” has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3. Section 2(g) - “domestic violence” has the same meaning as assigned to it in section 3. Section 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, house hold 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 house hold 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. 10. 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. 10. Abridging the intention of the legislature, while enacting the benevolent provisions of DV Act, an aggrieved person, defined under Section 2(a) who has/had a domestic relationship as defined under Section 2(f), is entitled to seek the reliefs provided under Sections 17 to 22 of the DV Act in case where there are allegations of commission of Domestic Violence as illustrated in Section 3, by filing a petition under Section 12 of the DV Act. 11. On perusal of the complaint sought to be quashed as against the petitioners, the prayers are mainly under Sections 17(2), 18(d) and 19(1)(a). On perusal of paragraph Nos.4, 5, 9 and 11 of the M.C., this Court cannot held that the allegations are either insufficient or omnibus, warranting quashment of the proceedings. 12. In the result, this petition fails and is dismissed. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the trial court for information and compliance.