The Delhi High Court has ruled that a father-in-law cannot be held liable under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, merely because he failed to control the conduct of his adult son.
Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing a woman's petition challenging an order that had set aside proceedings against her father-in-law in a domestic violence case.
The Court said the mere existence of a domestic relationship does not, by itself, establish liability under the DV Act. There must be specific allegations and facts showing conduct attributable to the person accused of domestic violence.
Woman alleged father-in-law failed to intervene
The couple married in 2006 and the woman subsequently lived with her husband and father-in-law in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The couple also adopted a daughter in 2012.
In 2019, she initiated proceedings under the DV Act against her husband and father-in-law, alleging verbal, emotional and economic abuse.
One of her allegations was that her father-in-law had failed to intervene against her husband's alleged involvement with another woman. She also accused him of siding with her husband during their matrimonial dispute and compelling her to leave the matrimonial home.
The woman further alleged that her father-in-law restricted her access to office and email facilities connected with a family business.
The High Court, however, found that the allegation concerning her father-in-law's failure to control his son did not establish his participation in the alleged matrimonial misconduct.
“A father cannot be made liable under the DV Act merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son,” Justice Jain observed.
Court finds allegations of abuse too vague
A Metropolitan Magistrate had issued notice to the father-in-law in January 2020. He challenged the order, following which the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, set aside the notice against him on June 8, 2023.
The woman then approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking restoration of the proceedings against her father-in-law. The case was registered as CRL.M.C. 6388/2023.
The High Court examined the allegations concerning the matrimonial home and found no specific threat or action by the father-in-law to remove her from the premises. The Court also noted that the woman continued to reside there and that the material did not establish any actual dispossession or prevention of access.
On the allegations of verbal and emotional abuse, the woman had described her father-in-law as dominating and orthodox and alleged that he had shouted at, insulted and abused her.
The Court found these allegations insufficient because they did not identify any particular incident or explain what had actually been said.
“The words ‘insulted’, ‘shouted’ and ‘abused’ are conclusions. Without the facts underlying them, they do not make out verbal or emotional abuse under Section 3,” the Court said in its August 19 order.
Business dispute did not establish economic abuse
The woman had also alleged economic abuse in connection with the family's business arrangements.
The Court acknowledged that economic abuse is covered by Section 3 of the DV Act. However, it noted that a commercial dispute does not automatically fall outside the scope of the provision, but the complainant must establish that she was deprived of a resource protected under the Act.
In the present case, the Court found nothing to show that the woman had been deprived of her shares or profits in the partnership firm because of any act of her father-in-law.
The Court also noted that the father-in-law ran a sole proprietorship, while the woman and her husband were partners in a separate business enterprise. The allegations concerning office, domain and email facilities did not establish deprivation of a legally protected resource or otherwise amount to economic abuse.
The Court further clarified that, at the stage of considering notice, it could examine whether the facts stated in the complaint, taken as they were, disclosed domestic violence. This did not require the Court to conduct a mini-trial or determine the truth of the allegations.
High Court dismisses plea against father-in-law
The High Court ultimately concluded that the material did not disclose any specific act of domestic violence attributable to the father-in-law.
It therefore dismissed the woman's plea and upheld the decision not to proceed against him under the DV Act. The proceedings against her estranged husband remain unaffected.
The order was passed on August 19, 2026, in Smt Deepali Mahajani v. State Through Chief Secretary & Ors., CRL.M.C. 6388/2023.
Advocates Dhruv Chawla, Nitin Kumar, Vipul Kanwar and Harshita Pal appeared for the petitioner/complainant woman.
Advocates Ravi Kumar Aggarwal and Ishaan Aggarwal appeared for the father-in-law, while Vineet Chaudhary and Santosh Chaudhary represented the woman's estranged husband.