MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

1. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. This Writ Petition involves a question of law as to whether any relief can be sought against the relative of the respondent – husband in the proceedings filed under section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the Family Court?

3. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the legality of the order dated 11.5.2015 passed by the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. A-1086 of 2013. The petition before the Family Court was filed for divorce under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 r/w Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as D.V. Act). In the said petition, the petitioner/wife has made her mother-in-law as a party respondent. Therefore, an application was moved by Respondent No. 2, the mother-in-law, under section 9A and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for deleting the party on the ground of a misjoinder of party. An issue was raised before the Family Court that Respondent No. 2 mother-in-law cannot be made a party to the nullity proceedings filed under the Hindu Marriage Act or Special Marriage Act as the Family Court has jurisdiction in respect of the proceedings between the parties to marriage only. The said application for compensation in the said petition was objected to on the ground that Respondent No. 2, the mother of the husband, cannot be party to the proceedings under the D.V. Act before the Family Court. The learned Judge of the Family Court heard the matter and passed a reasoned order by which application under section 9A with Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was allowed and inter alia the preliminary issue is framed as to whether the petitioner has proved that Respondent No. 2 is a necessary party to the proceedings?

4. Under Order 1 Rule 10, the Court has power to delete the parties, who are not necessary for adjudication of the issue. A preliminary issue framed by the Family Court that whether Respondent No. 2 is a necessary party can be answered by the Family Court depending on evidence led by the parties leading evidence. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised the contention that in view of section 2(q) of the D.V. Act, a relative of respondent/husband can also be made respondent. The proviso to section 2(q) reads thus:-

“(q) Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner.”

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court is erroneous. The provisions under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code has no relevance to the matter when is filed under the D.V. Act against the mother-in-law. The learned Judge of the Family Court has ignored the statement and object of the D.V. Act i.e., to protect the rights of women. He relied on the section 26 of the D.V. Act and submitted whether mother-in-law is a necessary party or not cannot be raised in such proceedings when the D.V. Act itself provides jurisdiction over the relative of the husband specifically. He submitted that the petitioner can claim reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the D.V. Act, as specified under section 26 of the D.V. Act in any legal proceeding filed before the Family Court and, therefore, the finding given by the learned Judge that for seeking remedy of compensation, jurisdiction under the D.V. Act lies in the Magistrate is erroneous. While entertaining the petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, the Family Court can entertain the petition under section 26 of the D.V. Act. Hence, he prayed that the order be set aside. In support of his submissions, Mr. Wagh relied on Brundaban Patra & Another vs. Rajalaxmi Patra, 2011 DGLS (AHC) 26266; Jaydipsinh Prabhatsinh Jhala & Others vs. State of Gujara