The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is usually pictured as a daughter-in-law’s statute. A recent decision of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Smt. Sushila Singh v. Smt. Nirmala Agnivanshi, CRMP No. 3610 of 2025, decided on 24 September 2026, is a reminder that the Act’s text is wider than that picture: a mother-in-law and a sister of a male relative can themselves be aggrieved persons, and objections about the absence of a shared household are ordinarily questions for trial, not for quashing.
The case in brief
Six petitioners approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking quashing of cognizance taken on a domestic violence complaint. The complainants were not the familiar figures of DV litigation: they were the mother-in-law and the sister of the husband of one of the petitioners. The petitioners’ central objection was structural — that the complainants had never shared a household with them, and therefore could not be “aggrieved persons” capable of maintaining an application under the Act.
Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas dismissed the petition on 24 September 2026. The court held that the complaint disclosed, prima facie, acts of domestic violence within a shared household, and that the disputed questions — who lived where, when, and in what relationship — are precisely the kind of questions a trial is designed to answer. The definitions in Sections 2(a), 2(f) and 2(s) are broad, and the Act’s protective scheme extends to family members including mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law.
The statutory architecture
| Provision | What it defines | Why it mattered here |
|---|---|---|
| Section 2(a) | “Aggrieved person” — any woman in a domestic relationship who alleges domestic violence | Nothing confines the definition to wives or daughters-in-law; an elderly mother qualifies. |
| Section 2(f) | “Domestic relationship” — living together in a shared household through consanguinity, marriage, adoption or joint family | Relationships of blood and marriage within a joint family are squarely covered. |
| Section 2(s) | “Shared household” | Whether a household was in fact shared is an evidentiary question, unfit for summary determination. |
| Section 3 | Definition of domestic violence — physical, verbal, emotional and economic abuse | The complaint’s allegations fell within this definition on a prima facie reading. |
Why quashing failed
For respondents in Delhi’s Mahila Courts, the practical lesson is to fight DV proceedings where they are designed to be fought — in evidence, and through the appeal under Section 29 — rather than in premature quashing petitions that add a round of litigation without ending the case. For elderly women facing mistreatment within joint households, the decision confirms that the Act’s doors are open to them, alongside the separate machinery of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
The wider picture
Delhi courts routinely see DV applications by mothers against sons and daughters-in-law, particularly in disputes over residence in self-acquired homes. The Chhattisgarh decision fits a consistent national pattern: the Act protects women in domestic relationships as a class, and definitional objections — no shared household, no domestic relationship, wrong category of respondent — seldom succeed at the threshold unless the application is barren on its face. A respondent’s energy is better spent on the merits: documentary proof of separate residence, income disclosures, and precise, dated rebuttals of each alleged incident.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice or a solicitation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a mother-in-law file a case under the DV Act?
Yes. Section 2(a) defines an aggrieved person as any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges domestic violence. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have long recognised that mothers and mothers-in-law living in a joint household can invoke the Act against relatives, including female relatives.
Can DV proceedings be quashed on the ground that there was no shared household?
Rarely at the threshold. In Sushila Singh the High Court held that whether the parties lived together in a shared household within Section 2(s) is a matter of evidence. Unless the complaint, read as a whole, discloses no domestic relationship at all, the objection must be raised and decided at trial.
Which provision is used to challenge DV cognizance in the High Court?
Petitions are commonly filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — the successor to Section 482 CrPC — invoking the court’s inherent powers. The threshold is high because DV proceedings are essentially civil in character.
Are women respondents permissible in DV cases?
Yes. After the Supreme Court struck down the words "adult male" from Section 2(q), a respondent can be any person in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved woman, including female relatives. That is why proceedings in this case continued against women members of the family as well.