The legality of maintaining proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against in-laws to claim maintenance while excluding the husband from the litigation.

Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.

Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.M.C. 77/2026 & CRL.M.A. 253/2026 (stay)

By way of the present petition filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioners seek quashing/setting aside of the orders dated 18.03.2025 and 30.04.2025 by the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court 05), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in MC Case No.63/2025.

2. Mr. Sonal Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner No.1 is the mother-in-law and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are the sisters-in-law of respondent No.2 who have been summonsed vide orders dated 18.03.2025 and 30.04.2025 in proceedings filed by respondent No.2 under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 (‘DV Act’).

3. Mr. Anand points-out, that as would be seen from a perusal of the complaint, petitioner No.1’s son (respondent No. 2’s husband) has not even made a party to the complaint filed under section 12 of the DV Act; and, instead the relief sought is that petitioner No.1 be directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- per month as maintenance to respondent No.2; with a further application for interim relief by way of allowance of Rs.20,000/- under section 20 of the DV Act.

4. Counsel submits that petitioner No.1 is a 70-year-old widow, who owns the property in which respondent No.2 (as well as her husband) resides; and petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are married daughters of petitioner No.1, who reside separately in their respective matrimonial homes.

5. It is submitted that the complaint under section 12 of the DV Act is a counterblast to a suit filed by petitioner No. 1 seeking mandatory and permanent injunction against respondent No.2 as well as her husband (namely petitioner No.1’s son).

6. It is submitted that the proceedings under section 12 of the DV Act are an evident case of abuse of the process of law, in which however, vide orders dated 18.03.2025 and 30.04.2025, the learned Mahila Court has issued notice to the petitioners without even considering the allegations made in the complaint, and evidently, without application of mind.

7. Most importantly, it is submitted that while claiming maintenance and interim relief against the petitioners, respondent No. 2 has made no claim against her husband at all; which betrays the collusion between respondent No.2 and her husband against petitioner No.1.

8. However it transpires, that the petitioners have since appeared in ongoing proceedings before the Mahila Court; and have participated in those proceedings; and the next date before that court is 10.02.2026.

9. Issue notice.

10. Upon the petitioners taking requisite steps, let notice be sent to the respondents by all permissible modes, returnable for the next date.

11. Ms. Richa Dhawan, learned APP appears for the State on advance copy; accepts notice; and seeks time to file status report.

12. Let status report be filed at least 03 days before the next date; with copy to the opposing counsel.

13. Re-notify on 04th February 2026.

14. In the meantime, the petitioners are directed to place on record all the subsequent orders passed by the learned Mahila Court.