Mother-in-law Cannot Appeal Under DV Act Without Being an 'Aggrieved Person': J&K&L High Court Denies Right to Challenge DV Order Without Locus

“She is neither a party to the proceedings nor has the order been passed against her. She does not fall within the definition of an ‘aggrieved person’ under Section 2(a) of the DV Act.” - High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar, presided by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, rendered a significant decision in a civil revision petition, examining whether a mother-in-law, who was not a party to proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, could file an appeal under Section 29 of the Act. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that only an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) is entitled to appeal, and that the petitioner lacked locus standi.

“Only a Woman Subjected to Domestic Violence Can Be an Aggrieved Person”: High Court Clarifies Scope of Section 2(a)

The petitioner, a mother-in-law, sought to challenge an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Budgam on 4th March 2024, arising out of proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act initiated by her daughter-in-law. Despite not being a party to those proceedings and not being the subject of the impugned order, she approached the Appellate Court (Principal Sessions Judge, Badgam) seeking leave to appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act.

The Appellate Court rejected her plea on 8th August 2024, citing the fact that she did not fall within the statutory definition of “aggrieved person”, as laid down under Section 2(a).

Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court in Civil Revision, seeking to overturn both orders.

Who Is an "Aggrieved Person" Under DV Act?

The Court focused on the definition clause under Section 2(a) of the Act: "“Aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.”

Justice Koul noted that the petitioner did not fall under this definition, as she was neither a victim of domestic violence, nor the respondent against whom any order had been passed.

"Admittedly, petitioner does not fall within the definition of aggrieved person, therefore, is not entitled to file appeal...", observed the Court [Para 5].

No Locus to Appeal When Not Affected by Order

The Court clarified that mere familial relation or being a mother-in-law does not by itself confer the right to appeal under Section 29, unless the person is directly affected or subject of the original order.

"She is neither the party before the Trial Court nor has order been passed against her."

Liberty to Seek Impleadment – An Alternate Remedy

Acknowledging the petitioner’s submission for limited relief, the Court noted: "Petitioner would feel satisfied if liberty is given to her to approach the Trial Court with an application for impleading her as party."

Accordingly, the High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Trial Court with an impleadment application, which the Trial Court shall decide in accordance with law after hearing objections from the other side.

"The revision petition is disposed of by providing that in case petitioner approaches the Trial Court with an application for impleading her as party, the Trial Court… shall consider and decide it… strictly in accordance with the provisions of law." [Para 8]

The petition was thus disposed of, and no opinion was expressed on the merits of the DV case itself.

The High Court reaffirmed the statutory limitations under the Domestic Violence Act, stressing that only women subjected to domestic violence in a domestic relationship are “aggrieved persons” who can appeal under Section 29. The decision is significant in restricting unwarranted third-party challenges and ensures that appellate remedies remain confined to those directly impacted by the original order.

Date of Decision: 22/07/2025