Introduction
In a significant judgment dated 4 April 2025, the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Garima & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh clarified that a mother-in-law can qualify as an “aggrieved person” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and may legally initiate proceedings against her daughter-in-law if subjected to domestic violence.
The ruling addresses growing concerns over selective interpretation and alleged misuse of the DV Act in matrimonial disputes, reinforcing that the statute is meant to protect all women in a domestic relationship, not exclusively wives. The judgment brings much-needed balance by ensuring that justice is not denied through narrow or gender-biased readings of the law.
Facts of the Case
The dispute arose following the marriage of the son of the complainant, Smt. Sudha Mishra (mother-in-law), to Smt. Garima (daughter-in-law).
According to the complaint:
- Soon after marriage, the daughter-in-law allegedly demanded that her husband live separately with her parents in Raebareli.
- Upon refusal, she allegedly began verbally abusing and threatening her husband, mother-in-law, and other family members.
- On 30 June 2024, it was alleged that the daughter-in-law, along with her parents and brother, forcibly entered the shared household and removed jewellery and cash belonging to the mother-in-law.
Consequently, Sudha Mishra filed Complaint Case No. 5786 of 2024 under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. Summons were issued on 13 September 2024.
Parallelly:
- The daughter-in-law had lodged an FIR against the husband’s family under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act
- A Section 125 CrPC maintenance petition was also pending.
The applicants sought quashing of the DV proceedings before the High Court.
Key Legal Issues Before the Court
- Can a mother-in-law be treated as an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the DV Act?
- Is a DV complaint by a mother-in-law against a daughter-in-law maintainable under the Act?
- Can proceedings be quashed at the summoning stage on the ground of counter-blast or mala fide intent?
- Whether cross-litigation alone is sufficient to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS)?
High Court’s Analysis
Justice Alok Mathur rejected the attempt to confine the DV Act’s protection only to daughters-in-law.
The Court held:
- At the summoning stage, the Magistrate is only required to see whether the complaint discloses a prima facie case.
- Allegations regarding retaliation, mala fides, or counter-litigation are matters of trial, not grounds for quashing.
- The DV Act must receive a liberal and purposive interpretation, consistent with its protective intent.
Importantly, the Court observed:
“The definition of ‘aggrieved person’ under Section 2(a) cannot be curtailed or narrowed down.”
Relevant Legal Provisions Explained
- Section 2(a) – Aggrieved Person
Includes any woman who alleges domestic violence within a domestic relationship — not limited to wives. - Section 2(f) – Domestic Relationship
Encompasses family members living together in a shared household, including joint families formed through marriage. - Section 2(q) – Respondent
Any adult male person in a domestic relationship against whom relief is sought. - Section 2(s) – Shared Household
Covers joint family homes irrespective of ownership or title.
Key Judicial Reasoning
- Wide Scope of Protection
The DV Act is a beneficial legislation meant to protect women across all domestic roles — including mothers-in-law subjected to abuse. - Existence of Prima Facie Case
Allegations of abuse, threats, and forcible dispossession of property constituted sufficient grounds to proceed under the Act. - No Premature Quashing
Claims of false implication or misuse must be tested through evidence during trial, not at the threshold.
Court’s Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the quashing application on 4 April 2025, holding that the complaint clearly disclosed a prima facie case under the DV Act. The proceedings before the Magistrate were allowed to continue, with liberty to the accused to raise all permissible defenses during trial.
Conclusion
This judgment marks a significant clarification in DV Act jurisprudence, affirming that domestic violence is not confined to one hierarchical direction within a family. By recognizing that mothers-in-law can also be victims, the Court restores balance to the law’s application while safeguarding its core purpose.
The ruling discourages mechanical quashing of proceedings merely due to cross-cases and reinforces the principle that justice must be determined on evidence, not assumptions.
Author’s Note
This decision is particularly relevant in today’s matrimonial landscape, where family disputes often escalate into multi-forum litigation. While the DV Act remains a crucial shield for genuine victims, this judgment ensures that it does not become inaccessible to other women within the household who may equally suffer abuse.
📺 For a detailed breakdown of the judgment and its implications, watch the full analysis on my YouTube channel — Legal Shots.
📩 For legal consultation or expert opinion, visit:
https://thelegalshots.com/legal-opinion/
