The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”) was enacted to safeguard women from abuse in domestic settings. The law offers a broad definition of “domestic violence” and “aggrieved person”, primarily focusing on the protection of wives and female partners from male perpetrators. However, over the years, an important legal question has surfaced: Can a mother-in-law, who is herself a woman, seek protection under the DV Act against her daughter-in-law?
This question was answered by the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Garima & 5 Others v. State of U.P. (2025), where a complaint filed by a mother-in-law under Section 12 of the DV Act was challenged on the ground of maintainability. The judgment not only clarified the law but also expanded its application to accommodate the evolving dynamics of domestic relationships in Indian society.
Factual Background of the Case
In this case, the complainant was the mother-in-law of the primary applicant, Smt. Garima, who had filed a complaint under Section 12 of the DV Act before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. The complainant alleged that her daughter-in-law mistreated her and created pressure on her son to live away from his parental home. When her son refused, the daughter-in-law began abusing both him and the complainant.
It was further alleged that on 30.06.2024, the daughter-in-law forcibly took away jewellery and money from the complainant’s possession. Based on these allegations, the trial court issued summon to the daughter-in-law and her relatives.
Subsequently, the daughter-in-law applied Section 482 of the CrPC (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), challenging the summons and arguing that a mother-in-law does not fall within the definition of an “aggrieved person” under the DV Act.
Legal Issue Before the Court
The central issue before the Allahabad High Court was:
- Whether a mother-in-law can be considered an “aggrieved person” under Section 12 of the DV Act and maintain a complaint against her daughter-in-law?
Relevant Legal Provisions
To decide the matter, the Court examined the definitions under the DV Act:
Section 2(a) – Aggrieved Person
“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.
Section 2(f) – Domestic Relationship
“Domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family.
Section 2(s) – Shared Household
“Shared household” means a household where the aggrieved person and the respondent have lived together either singly or jointly, and includes property belonging to the joint family.
The Court also referred to the object of the Domestic Violence Act, which is to protect women from domestic violence of any kind—physical, emotional, or economic.
The Court’s Reasoning
1. Definition of Aggrieved Person Includes Any Woman
The Court observed that the term “aggrieved person” is not limited to wives or daughters-in-law alone. It includes any woman who is in a domestic relationship and has faced domestic violence.
2. Living in a Shared Household
In the present case, it was undisputed that the mother-in-law and daughter-in-law were living in the same house and were part of the same joint family. Therefore, the requirement of “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the DV Act was fulfilled.
3. Respondent Can Be Any Relative
The proviso to Section 2(q) of the DV Act states that an aggrieved wife or female can file a complaint against a relative of the husband. However, this does not mean that complaints cannot be filed by other women against female relatives. The Act does not exclude such situations.
4. Interpretation Must Be Liberal
The Court reiterated that the DV Act is a beneficial legislation and should be interpreted liberally to protect women. It cannot be construed narrowly to exclude mothers-in-law who are subjected to abuse from their daughters-in-law.
5. Prima Facie Allegations Made
The complaint made out a prima facie case of harassment, abuse, and wrongful deprivation of property, which warranted the issuance of summon by the magistrate. The High Court refused to interfere at the preliminary stage.
Court’s Decision
The Allahabad High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC ((now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and held that:
“A mother-in-law can be an aggrieved person under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, if she is subjected to mental or physical harassment by her daughter-in-law while living in a domestic relationship.”
The Court emphasised that:
- The Domestic Violence Act is not restricted to one category of women.
- A mother-in-law is eligible to seek protection if she satisfies the test of being an “aggrieved person” under the Act.
- Merely because the alleged respondent is a woman (daughter-in-law), it does not bar the maintainability of a complaint.
Significance of the Judgment
A. Expands the Protective Scope of the Domestic Violence Act
This ruling provides a much-needed clarification that any woman, irrespective of her role in the household, can avail of remedies under the DV Act.
B. Acknowledges Abuse by Female Members
It is often presumed that only male members perpetrate violence. This case challenges that notion by acknowledging that female members, including daughters-in-law, can also be aggressors.
C. Encourages Legal Recourse for Elderly Women
The judgment provides a legal shield to ageing mothers-in-law who may be facing abuse within their homes but are unsure about their legal rights.
D. Sets Precedent for Similar Cases
This case sets a valuable precedent for lower courts dealing with similar matters across the country.
Criticism and Caution
While the judgment rightly empowers more women under the Domestic Violence Act, it must be applied cautiously to avoid its misuse in familial disputes.
- False counter-allegations in family matters may arise.
- Courts must scrutinise evidence diligently to prevent abuse of the law.
Conclusion
The landmark decision of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Garima & 5 Ors. v. State of U.P. rightly affirms that a mother-in-law can file a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against her daughter-in-law, provided she is an “aggrieved person” who has lived in a domestic relationship in a shared household.
This judgment broadens the protective umbrella of the DV Act, reflecting a more inclusive and realistic understanding of domestic abuse. It reinforces that the right to live with dignity and without fear of abuse belongs to every woman, irrespective of her role or position in the family hierarchy.
