Swati Mishra vs Leena Gupta & Anr. on 3 December, 2015

(1) The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner to

challenge the legality and correctness of an order dated 01.07.2015 of

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, (Mahila Court) whereby names of

respondents were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties.

(2) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have

examined the Trial Court record. Admittedly, the petitioner was married

to Dr.Anurag Gupta. She has filed petition under Section 12 of DV Act

against him and her father-in-law (Sita Ram Prasad Gupta). Respondent

No.1 is her elder sister-in-law and was married to respondent No.2.
Crl.Rev.P.553/2015 Page 1 of 2
Admittedly, prior to petitioner’s marriage with Dr.Anurag Gupta, they

were living separate at their matrimonial home in Kolkota. After the

marriage, the petitioner along with her husband lived in U.K. It is stated

that there is ancestral house of her husband at Patna and the respondents

did not allow her to enter the ancestral house. On perusal of the petition,

it reveals that the respondents never lived with the petitioner in U.K. or at

Patna and never had ‘shared household’ to constitute domestic

relationship. The petitioner has alleged in the complaint that the

respondents used to remain in touch on telephone with her and intervene

in the family matters while she was in U.K. Simply, because the

respondents are related to the petitioner’s husband, they cannot be

dragged into matrimonial dispute between them in DV Act. The Trial

Court order is based upon fair appraisal of the legal aspects and needs no


Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply