The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition challenging an appellate order that had set aside notice issued against a woman’s father-in-law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Justice Madhu Jain held that a father-in-law cannot be held liable under the DV Act merely for failing to control the conduct of his adult son, particularly when the allegations against him did not disclose any specific act of domestic violence.
Background
The petitioner married respondent No. 3 in January 2006 and subsequently lived with her husband and father-in-law at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The family was also connected through business arrangements involving Warp Weft International (WWI) and WWI Enterprise (WWIE).
The matrimonial and business relationships deteriorated between 2017 and 2019. The petitioner alleged, among other things, that her father-in-law restricted her access to office and email facilities, supported her husband during the matrimonial dispute and asked the family to leave the shared household. The respondents disputed these allegations and maintained that the dispute concerning the father-in-law was essentially commercial.
The Magistrate had initially directed issuance of notice to both the husband and father-in-law. However, the appellate court later set aside the notice against the father-in-law, holding that the allegations substantially arose from the business dealings between WWI and WWIE and did not disclose economic, verbal or emotional abuse.
The High Court examined the allegations individually. It noted that the existence of a domestic relationship by itself was insufficient; the material had to disclose conduct falling within the statutory definition of domestic violence.
The Court also clarified that at the stage of notice, it was not required to conduct a trial or determine whether the allegations were ultimately true.
“At the stage of notice, the Court cannot decide whether an allegation is true or weigh the evidence. It may, however, see whether the facts stated in the application, without adding to them, amount to domestic violence as this is not a mini-trial.”
The Court found that the allegation concerning the father-in-law’s failure to control the conduct of his adult son could not, by itself, make him liable under the DV Act. It also found that the allegations concerning office, domain and email facilities did not establish deprivation of a resource protected by the Act or economic abuse.
Regarding the allegation that the petitioner was asked to leave the matrimonial home, the Court noted that she continued to reside there and that no specific consequence or step to remove her was alleged. The Court therefore found that the material did not establish a threat of domestic violence by the father-in-law.
The High Court concluded that although the domestic relationship between the petitioner and her father-in-law was undisputed, the application did not set out an act attributable to him that amounted to domestic violence. It found no ground to interfere with the appellate order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The petition was accordingly dismissed, while the proceedings against respondent No. 3 remained unaffected.
The Court also disposed of the connected application concerning additional documents.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt Deepali Mahajani v. State Through Chief Secretary & Ors.
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 6388/2023 & CRL.M.A. 36957/2024
Judge: Justice Madhu Jain
Decision Date: 19 August 2026
