General Allegation That In-Laws Supported Husband Not Enough For Domestic Violence Act: Karnataka High Court

In a significant ruling on the scope of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Karnataka High Court has held that a general allegation that in-laws supported their son does not constitute domestic violence. The court quashed proceedings against the husband’s parents while upholding an interim maintenance order of ₹7,000 per month against the husband.

The Allegations: From Netflix to Groceries

The case arose from a petition filed by Smt. Rashmi, wife of Ashirwad Upadhyaya, under Section 12 of the DV Act. The couple married on August 21, 2022, but the relationship soured within months. The wife alleged harassment and dowry demands from her husband and his parents, Srinivas and Gayatri Upadhyaya.

The husband’s counsel argued that the allegations against him were trivial – including claims that he suffered from erectile dysfunction, failed to speak to her, did not open the door when she returned home, neglected to recharge Netflix and Amazon subscriptions, and allegedly concealed grocery items. Against the parents, the only claim was that they “supported” their son.

“General Allegation” Not Enough for In-Laws

Justice Venkatesh Naik T, examining the wife’s application, found that the allegations were “principally directed against petitioner No.1-husband” and that there were “no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 [the parents], except the general allegation that they supported petitioner No.1.”

Quoting the trial court’s own observation, the High Court noted that continuing proceedings against the parents would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition for quashing was partly allowed, and the proceedings against Srinivas and Gayatri Upadhyaya were dropped.

Maintenance of ₹7,000 Upheld

On the separate petition challenging interim maintenance, the court upheld the trial court’s order directing the husband to pay ₹7,000 per month. The husband, an engineer earning ₹35,000 monthly, had argued that he was not given a proper opportunity to file an affidavit of assets and liabilities.

However, the High Court found no grounds to interfere, noting that the marital relationship was undisputed and the wife had claimed she was unable to maintain herself. The first appellate court had already affirmed the maintenance order, and the High Court saw no error in that decision.

Key Observations

The court’s reasoning was clear:

“Upon perusal of the allegations made in the application filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, it clearly demonstrated that the allegations were principally directed against petitioner No.1-husband. The trial Court further observed that there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to petitioner Nos.2 and 3, except the general allegation that they supported petitioner No.1.”

“In the absence of specific allegations constituting domestic violence against petitioner Nos.2 and 3, continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law.”

Final Decision

The High Court partly allowed the quashing petition, dismissing the case against the parents while permitting proceedings against the husband to continue. The maintenance petition was dismissed, upholding the ₹7,000 monthly interim payment. The trial court has been directed to expedite the matter without unnecessary adjournments.

This judgment reinforces the principle that vague and generalised allegations against relatives of the husband will not sustain proceedings under the DV Act. Specific acts of domestic violence must be alleged and proved, even in cases where in-laws are accused of supporting the primary perpetrator.