Last update:
The bank of Judge Alok Mathur dismissed a request presented by a woman and her relatives challenging a citation issued by a magistrate in a complaint of domestic violence presented by her mother -in -law.
Representative image
The Superior Court of Allahabad, Luckknow Bench recently exceeded the complaint of a mother -in -law under the law of domestic violence against its daughter -in -law, observing that the law cannot be interpreted closely or restrictively.
The bank of Judge Alok Mathur dismissed a request presented by a woman and her relatives challenging a citation issued by a magistrate in a complaint of domestic violence presented by her mother -in -law. The petitioners had argued that the protection of women of the Domestic Violence Law, 2005 (DV Law), intended to safeguard the daughters -in -law, not to be used against them.
However, the Court argued that the law is a “beneficial legislation” to mete to protect any woman who suffers domestic violence in a shared home, regardless of the dynamics of the relationship.
“In the event that the mother -in -law is harassed or physically or mentally tortured by the daughter -in -law or any other family member, it could certainly be taken to the fold of a injured person and would have the right to maintain the request under section 12 of the protection of women of the law of domestic violence, 2005,” said the court, firmly rejecting the argument that such complaints were not mining.
The case arose from a complaint filed by Saudha Mishra, the mother of a man married to Garima, the main applicant. Mishra claimed that her daughter -in -law pressed her son to move to her parents’ home in Raebareli and Beed badly behaving when he refused. In addition, he said that Garima, along with his relatives, abused and threatened her, and on June 30, 2024, in cash and forced jewels of the house.
Taking note of these accusations, the magistrate had issued a summons to the applicants. Garima and his relatives approached the Superior Court, arguing that the complaint was a reprisal measure after having submitted a Dowry Amasture and a maintenance claim under section 125 CRPC.
However, the Superior Court refused to annul the order of the magistrate, arguing that the Court of First Instance had considered the accusations carefully and that was sufficient registered material to proceed with the case. “In the stage of the issuance of the citation, the Court of First Instance has been forced to consider the registered warning material, which is in the form of complaint,” said the bank.
The Court also carried out a detailed analysis of the DV Acts definitions, especially the terms “aggrieved person” and “national relationship”. He concluded that these provisions do not exclude mothers from the protection of Seijs under the law.
“The applicability of said law cannot be reduced, but must be interpreted liberally,” said the court.
Consequently, the Superior Court refused to interfere with the order approved by the magistrate.