Even a Mother-in-Law Can Be an Aggrieved Woman: Allahabad High Court Upholds Right to File Domestic Violence Case Against Daughter-in-Law

“A Woman Living in a Joint Family Has the Right to Seek Protection from Her Daughter-in-Law Under DV Act” - In a notable ruling expanding the protective umbrella of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has held that a mother-in-law who is mentally or physically harassed by her daughter-in-law has the locus to file a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act.

Justice Alok Mathur dismissed the plea filed by the daughter-in-law and her relatives seeking quashing of summons issued against them by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, in Complaint Case No. 5786 of 2024.

“DV Act is Not Gendered Towards One Relationship—Any Woman in a Domestic Setup Can Claim Protection”

The petitioners had approached the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., contending that the complaint made by the mother-in-law (opposite party no. 2) was not maintainable under the DV Act as she did not qualify as an “aggrieved person.”

Rejecting the argument, the Court held:

“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.”​

It emphasized a liberal interpretation of the Act, pointing out that it is a beneficial legislation meant to protect women in a domestic setting—irrespective of which family member causes the violence.

The complaint was filed by the mother-in-law alleging that after her son’s marriage to applicant no. 1, Smt. Garima, the latter pressurized him to shift permanently to her parental home in Raebareli. Upon his refusal, the daughter-in-law allegedly misbehaved with both him and the complainant, including abuse and threats of false cases.

The complainant further alleged that on 30.06.2024, Garima and her relatives forcibly took away cash and jewelry from her possession.

After hearing the complaint, the Magistrate issued process (summons) on 13.09.2024, prompting the present challenge before the High Court.

The petitioners argued that the complaint was merely a “counterblast” to a previously registered FIR under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act filed by Garima, and also pointed to a pending maintenance petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

However, the High Court rejected the attempt to delve into the petitioners’ defence at this preliminary stage, holding:

“The only arguments raised by the applicants are the defence, which can be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage.”​

“Shared Household Includes the Entire Joint Family Setup”

Interpreting Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(q), and 2(s) of the DV Act, the Court noted:

“On conjoint reading of the above sections, it can be inferred that the aggrieved person can be any woman who has lived in a domestic relationship in a shared household with the respondent.”​

Thus, a mother-in-law, being a woman who resided in a joint family with her daughter-in-law, qualifies as an aggrieved person, and her legal right to protection under the DV Act is undeniable.

“DV Act Must Be Read Beneficially—Not Narrowly”

Justice Alok Mathur stressed that the DV Act must be interpreted with its social intent in mind:

“The Act of 2005 is a beneficial legislation for women who are subjected to domestic violence and applicability of the said Act cannot be curtailed but has to be liberally interpreted.”​

He further noted that the Magistrate had prima facie applied his mind and was satisfied with the complaint before issuing summons.

In a clear message against stereotyping victims under the Domestic Violence Act, the Allahabad High Court has affirmed that any woman, whether mother-in-law or daughter-in-law, who faces violence in a domestic setting, is entitled to legal protection.

This decision is likely to reshape the common narrative around the application of the DV Act, making it more inclusive and balanced across intergenerational conflicts within families.

Date of Decision: April 4, 2025