The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has held that a mother-in-law cannot maintain an appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) unless she qualifies as an “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) or is otherwise a party to the original proceedings. The Court, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to seek impleadment before the Trial Court.
The order was passed by Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul while disposing of CM(M) No. 310/2024 filed by a woman seeking to challenge two orders — one passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Budgam on March 4, 2024, and another by the Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam (Appellate Court) on August 8, 2024 — in proceedings initiated by her daughter-in-law under Section 12 of the DV Act.
Background
The petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the woman alleging domestic violence, was not a party to the proceedings before the Trial Court. She nevertheless filed an application seeking leave to appeal against the Trial Court’s March 2024 order. The Appellate Court refused to grant such leave, holding that she did not qualify as an “aggrieved person” under the Act and hence had no statutory right of appeal under Section 29.
Arguments
The petitioner, through counsel Mr. S. N. Ratanpuri and Ms. Fiza Khursheed, argued that as the mother-in-law of the complainant, she had a sufficient interest in the matter and should be permitted to appeal under Section 29 of the Act.
However, the Court noted that the definition of “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the DV Act states:
“Aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have bee subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.”
The Court held that:
“Admittedly, petitioner does not fall within the definition of aggrieved person, therefore, is not entitled to file appeal as she is neither the party before the Trial Court nor has order been passed against her.”
Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Amir Hussain Khan, submitted that the petitioner had, in fact, filed a separate petition under Section 12 of the DV Act against her son and daughter-in-law, which was pending before the same Trial Court.
Court’s Observation and Decision
Acknowledging that the petitioner may wish to be heard in the existing proceedings, her counsel requested that she be permitted to seek impleadment as a party.
Accepting the request, the High Court ordered:
“In case petitioner approaches the Trial Court with an application for impleading her as party, the Trial Court, after seeking objections, shall consider and decide it and pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with the provisions of law.”
Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.
