MUMBAI, Dec. 31 -- A long period of separation between spouses does not provide any ground for dismissal of complaints under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act, 2005, the Bombay high court observed while rejecting a petition filed by a 74-year-old surgeon, seeking quashing of a DV complaint filed by his estranged wife. The petitioner had claimed that he and his wife had been living separately for six years before she filed the complaint and therefore there was no "domestic relationship" between them. The couple, both doctors and residents of Parsi Colony in Dadar, got married in January 1975 and have two sons. They started residing separately 2012 onwards; six years later, in 2018, the wife invoked section 12 of the DV Act to institute proceedings before the metropolitan magistrate court in Kurla. She alleged that her husband had been treating her cruelly and harassing her since their marriage and sought various reliefs. The surgeon filed a counter application seeking dismissal of the complaint - he claimed that it was based on old and stale incidents, and that there was no subsisting "domestic relationship" between him and his wife when the complaint was filed. The magistrate court dismissed the surgeon's plea on December 19, 2019, and the sessions court upheld the order on October 9, 2020, prompting him to approach the high court. In the high court, a single judge bench of justice Manjusha Deshpande rejected his objection to his wife's DV complaint after noticing that it detailed instances of infidelity and harassment post-marriage, right till their separation in 2012, and even thereafter. The high court said the magistrate court had correctly taken note of recent communication between the estranged spouses, wherein the wife accused her husband of trying to sell their flat without her knowledge, and called upon him to desist from such transactions. Hence, the high court held that the DV complaint was not based on stale claims, but encompassed recent events as well. As regards the surgeon's claim of lack of subsisting "domestic relationship", the court said that the DV Act gives wider meaning to the term and covers various situations, including the relationship between two persons at any point of time when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or any other relationship. "Although they were residing separately, their marriage was not dissolved," justice Deshpande said. "Therefore, it can be unerringly held that there is a domestic relationship between them."...