The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash proceedings under the DV Act, particularly when the allegations are inherently improbable and fall under the categories identified by the Supreme Court for exercising jurisdiction to quash proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties and heard finally.

2. A daughter is before this Court seeking quashing of proceedings initiated by her mother under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "DV Act"), claiming that she is facing the ire of her mother due to matrimonial discord between her mother and her father. According to the Petitioner, she has been unnecessarily dragged into the said proceedings pending before the Court of Magistrate and that this is having a detrimental effect on her career as also her prospects of studying abroad.

3. The Respondent No.1 is the mother of the Petitioner herein. She has filed an application under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of D.V. Act before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate at Andheri, Mumbai against her husband i.e. the father of the Petitioner herein, as also the Petitioner. It is stated in the said application filed before the Magistrate that there is matrimonial discord between Respondent No.1 and her husband. The Respondent No. 1 has raised various grievances against her husband and on that basis, she has sought relief in the form of protection order, monetary relief, residence order and order for grant of compensation. Although the Petitioner is arrayed as Respondent No. 2 in the said application, there is only one allegation made against her in the entire application filed by Respondent No. 1.

4. An interim order was passed by the learned Magistrate thereby issuing certain directions against husband of Respondent No.1. The said order has been challenged by way of appeal by him alongwith the Petitioner before the Sessions Court.

5. The Petitioner has filed the present petition stating that the proceedings under the D.V. Act were initiated by her mother i.e. by Respondent No. 1 in the year 2018, when the Petitioner was in the final year of her Engineering course. The Petitioner has submitted that she has completed her Engineering course and she plans to undertake further studies in Australia, for which she has already initiated the process. According to the Petitioner, in the application and forms that are required to be filled while seeking Visa before the Australian authorities, a declaration is to be given regarding pendency of criminal cases against the Applicant. Pendency of the said proceeding initiated under the D.V. Act by her mother are creating hurdles for the Petitioner to successfully seek Visa in order to visit Australia for undertaking higher studies. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the said proceedings pending before the Magistrate under the DV Act, insofar as she is concerned.

6. On 14th December, 2020, this Court issued notice in the writ petition and granted interim stay of further proceedings in the DV Case bearing No.245 of 2018, pending before the Court of Magistrate. The Respondent No. 1 entered appearance through counsel and filed reply to the writ petition. In the reply placed on record before this Court, the said Respondent reiterated her grievances against her husband and she repeated the allegation made against the Petitioner, which was stated before the Magistrate in the application filed under the DV Act. Apart from this, said Respondent claimed that the Petitioner was not required to go abroad for studies and that this was only an excuse given by her to escape facing the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. The Respondent No.1 further stated that the Petitioner was interested in food blogging and that she had already completed her education in India. There are certain statements made about the character of the Petitioner and that she allegedly has many boyfriends. On this basis, the Respondent sought dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Ms. Kenny Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the proceeding under the DV Act was initiated again