Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that a mother-in-law cannot prosecute the father and brother of the daughter-in-law under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

“Admittedly, the 2005 Act is a social beneficial legislation enacted to protect women from domestic violence of all kinds. While the object and purpose of the DV Act is to protect a woman from domestic violence, it does not confer a right on a mother-in-law to prosecute the father and brother of her daughter-in-law under the DV Act,” the order states.

A single-judge bench led by Justice Neela Gokhale heard a petition filed by the father, his son and his daughter (X).

The trio were facing prosecution based on a complaint filed by the mother-in-law of X under the Domestic Violence Act.

X got married in 2016 and claimed that she had been subjected to cruelty. An FIR was also lodged against X’s husband and his family members under Section 498A (cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Additionally, a magistrate court issued an order under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), granting maintenance of Rs. 25,000 per month to X.

Complaining of domestic violence in her matrimonial home, X also filed an application under the Domestic Violence Act against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and the brother of her mother-in-law.

X’s mother-in-law subsequently filed an application under Section 12 of the DV Act against X, her father, and her brother, seeking relief under Sections 18, 19, 20, and 22 of the DV Act.

The magistrate court issued summons to the three of them which was challenged in the high court.

Advocates Sushil Upadhyay and Ashok Sorangi, representing X, her brother, and father, argued that the proceedings were initiated solely as a counter-blast to the proceedings filed by X herself against her husband and his family members, including the mother-in-law.

They further contended that the proceedings are not maintainable under the DV Act, as none of the petitioners falls within the category of individuals against whom such proceedings can be filed.

The high court, in its order, observed that the brother and father of X do not fall within the scope and ambit of the definitions of 'aggrieved person,' 'domestic violence,' 'respondent,' or 'shared household' in the DV Act.

The bench added that mere allegations of threats and violence against the brother and father of X are not sufficient to make them liable for prosecution under the DV Act.

Therefore, the high court set aside the summons issued to the brother and father of X and noted that the complaint against X is maintainable, and the DV Court is entitled to continue the prosecution against her.

Case title: X & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.