Mother-In-Law Can Seek Protection Under DV Act Against Daughter-In-Law: Allahabad High Court
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur dismissed a plea filed by a woman and her relatives challenging summons issued by a magistrate in a domestic violence complaint lodged by her mother-in-law.
The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench recently upheld a mother-in-law’s complaint under the Domestic Violence Act against her daughter-in-law, observing that the law cannot be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive manner.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur dismissed a plea filed by a woman and her relatives challenging summons issued by a magistrate in a domestic violence complaint lodged by her mother-in-law. The petitioners had contended that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), was intended to safeguard daughters-in-law, not to be used against them.
related stories
- Watch: Faridabad Woman Hides Inside Cupboard For 2 Hours As Stray Cow, Bull Take Over Bedroom
- 22-Year Affair: Woman Finds Husband In Bed With Mother, Questions If Siblings Are Her Step-Kids
- Air Hostess On Ventilator Sexually Assaulted By Gurugram Hospital Staff
- Pune Couple Assaulted, Their Car Vandalised By Drunk Bikers In Road Rage Case | Video
However, the court held that the Act is a “beneficial legislation" meant to protect any woman who suffers domestic violence in a shared household, regardless of the relationship dynamics.
“In case, mother-in-law is harassed or physically or mentally tortured by the daughter-in-law or any other member of the family, certainly she could be brought within the fold of aggrieved person and would have a right to maintain the application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005," the court said, firmly rejecting the argument that such complaints were not maintainable.
The case arose from a complaint filed by Sudha Mishra, the mother of a man married to Garima, the lead applicant. Mishra alleged that her daughter-in-law pressured her son to relocate to her parental home in Raebareli and began misbehaving when he refused. She further claimed that Garima, along with her relatives, abused and threatened her, and on June 30, 2024, forcibly took cash and jewellery from the house.
Taking note of these allegations, the magistrate had issued summons to the applicants. Garima and her relatives approached the high court, arguing that the complaint was a retaliatory measure after she had filed a dowry harassment FIR and a maintenance claim under Section 125 CrPC.
The high court, however, refused to quash the magistrate’s order, holding that the trial court had considered the allegations carefully and that there was enough material on record to proceed with the case. “At the stage of issuing summons, the trial court has been mandated to consider the material available on record, which is in the form of complaint," the bench pointed out.
The court also conducted a detailed analysis of the DV Act’s definitions, especially the terms “aggrieved person" and “domestic relationship." It concluded that these provisions do not exclude mothers-in-law from seeking protection under the Act.
“Applicability of the said Act cannot be curtailed but has to be liberally interpreted," the court remarked.
Accordingly, the high court refused to interfere with the order passed by the magistrate.
- Location :
- First Published: