Mother-In-Law Harassed By Daughter-In-Law Can Be Aggrieved Person U/s. 12 Of DV Act: Allahabad High Court
|The Allahabad High Court dismissed an Application by a daughter-in-law challenging the Order summoning her in a DV case filed by her mother-in-law.
The Allahabad High Court clarified that a mother-in-law, harassed or physically or mentally tortured by the daughter-in-law, comes within the fold of an ‘aggrieved person’ under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
The Court dismissed an Application filed under Section 482 of the CrPC by a daughter-in-law (Applicant) challenging the Order of the Magistrate summoning her in a case filed by her mother-in-law (complainant) under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). The Court held that the DV Act’s applicability, being a beneficial legislation for women who are subjected to domestic violence, “cannot be curtailed but has to be liberally interpreted.”
A Single Bench of Justice Alok Mathur held, “A perusal of Section 12 of the said Act indicates that the application can be filed by any person, who has been described as "aggrieved person". Though the definition of aggrieved person has not been given in the said Act but certainly the definition of aggrieved person cannot be curtailed or narrow down in terms of what has been argued by learned counsel for applicants. 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.”
Advocate Sushilendra Kumar Sahu appeared for the Applicant.
Brief Facts
The complaint before the Magistrate was filed by the mother-in-law, who alleged that her son was married to the Applicant. The Complainant alleged that after the marriage, the Applicant pressured her son to live with her parents and, upon his refusal, misbehaved with him and threatened her with false cases. The Complainant further alleged that the Applicant and her family members forcibly took away jewellery and cash. The Trial Court, after considering the complaint, issued notices to the Applicant.
The Applicant argued that the proceedings were initiated with malafide intention, since the Applicant had filed an FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the Complainant.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held, “It has further been stated that opposite party no. 2 is continuously mentally and physically harassing complainant and also forcibly taken away the entire goods and money from her possession on 30.06.2024. Accordingly, this Court finds that clear satisfaction had been arrived by the trial court at the stage of issuing process of summons to the applicant.”
The Lucknow Bench remarked, “A perusal of the complaint clearly discloses prima facie case to be proceeded under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. This Court further does not find any merit in the arguments raised by the applicants that her mother-in-law is disable from filing an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Here, in this case, the mother in law is the aggrieved woman who has shared household and lived together with the daughter in law in a domestic relationship as a joint family and therefore has a right to file application under Sec. 12 of the Act of 2005. Accordingly, the argument of learned counsel for applicants that the application cannot be preferred by mother-in-law is bereft of merits accordingly, rejected.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application.
Cause Title: X v. State Of U.P. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC-LKO:18831)