The High Court has observed that the visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency or the intention to treat the premises as shared household, would not render them as members of the “shared household”.

The single-judge bench of Justice Prateek Jalan while applying the law laid down in SATISH CHANDER AHUJA vs. SNEHA AHUJA noted that just as the woman living fleetingly or casually at different places, would not convert those places into a “shared household”, the same will imply at sundry family members.

In the present petition, the non-issuance of summons to sundry members (respondent Nos. 3 and 4) under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has been disputed.

The Court assessed the documents and found out that they frequently made visits and stayed at the matrimonial home of petitioner during these trips. There are various allegations against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 of interference in the petitioner’s marital life. The complainant has also made allegations against the respondent No. 4 of sexual harassment and molestation, due to which she left the matrimonial home and returned to her parental home.

The Court noted that although the complaint contains several allegations against the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (the sister-in-law of the petitioner and her husband) as noted above, but as far as the living arrangements are concerned, it is the case of the complainant herself that the matrimonial home was not shared by them.

It is in this context that the MM and the Appellate Court have reached the conclusion that there is no domestic relationship between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the Court remarked.

The Court upheld the view and dismissed the petition.