The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed a petition filed by Smt. Garima and five others seeking to quash a summoning order issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The Court held that a mother-in-law, if aggrieved, is entitled to invoke the provisions of the DV Act against her daughter-in-law.
The matter was heard by Hon’ble Justice Alok Mathur in Application U/S 482 No. 2697 of 2025 filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC).
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed by the mother-in-law of applicant no. 1 (Smt. Garima) alleging that post-marriage, her daughter-in-law exerted pressure on her son to move to Raebareli and live with her (Garima’s) parents. Upon refusal, the daughter-in-law allegedly started misbehaving with both her husband and the complainant.
Further, it was alleged that on June 30, 2024, Smt. Garima and her family members forcibly took away jewellery and cash from the complainant’s possession. Based on these allegations, the trial court issued a summoning order dated September 13, 2024, in Complaint Case No. 5786 of 2024.
Petitioners’ Submissions
The petitioners’ counsel, Advocate Sushilendra Kumar Sahu, argued that:
- The complaint was a counterblast to an FIR already lodged by Smt. Garima under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Applicant no. 1 had also filed an application under Section 125 CrPC for maintenance.
- The mother-in-law does not fall within the definition of an “aggrieved person” under the DV Act and hence cannot file a complaint under Section 12.
Court’s Analysis & Ruling
The Court rejected these arguments and affirmed the validity of the summoning order. Justice Alok Mathur observed:
“Clear allegations have been levelled pertaining to the domestic violence by the complainant… The trial court has duly considered the complaint and arrived at satisfaction at the stage of issuing summons.”
The Court emphasized that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is a beneficial legislation and must be interpreted liberally. Referring to Section 2(a) and Section 2(f) of the Act, 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.”
Quoting the statutory framework, the Court stated:
“‘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.”
It concluded that:
“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.”
Finding no merit in the challenge, the Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC, thereby upholding the summoning order issued by the Magistrate in the domestic violence proceedings.
Case Title: Smt. Garima and 5 Others vs. State of U.P. & Another
Case No.: Application U/S 482 No. 2697 of 2025
