False DV Case | Wife Alleging That In-Laws Supported Husband Not Enough To Invoke Domestic Violence Act: Karnataka High Court
Curated by NEWS DESK
Editorial Desk
KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court has held that a general allegation that the parents-in-law supported the husband is not enough to continue proceedings against them under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, when no specific act of domestic violence is attributed to them.
Justice Venkatesh Naik T passed the order while deciding two connected criminal petitions filed by a husband and his parents. The first petition sought quashing of the Domestic Violence Act proceedings, while the second challenged the order directing the husband to pay Rs.7,000 per month as interim maintenance to his wife. The parties filed the petitions under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
The husband and wife were married on August 21, 2022. According to the wife, their relationship remained cordial only for a few months. She later alleged that her husband and his parents harassed her, demanded additional dowry and that the husband subjected her to domestic violence. She then initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act.
During those proceedings, the wife sought interim maintenance. On July 8, 2024, the trial court directed the husband to pay Rs.7,000 per month from the date of filing of the petition. The Sessions Court subsequently dismissed his appeal against that order.
Before the High Court, counsel for the petitioners argued that there were no specific allegations of domestic violence against the husband's father and mother. The allegations against the husband included that he suffered from erectile dysfunction, did not speak to his wife, failed to open the door when she returned home, did not recharge Netflix and Amazon subscriptions and allegedly concealed grocery items from her in the kitchen.
The petitioners argued that the parents, aged 70 and 65, were retired government officials and had no independent role in the alleged incidents. According to them, continuing proceedings against the elderly parents without any specific allegation or overt act would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
On the interim maintenance issue, the husband argued that the trial court had not given both parties sufficient opportunity to file affidavits regarding their assets and liabilities before passing the maintenance order. The wife opposed both petitions and argued that the parents-in-law were necessary and proper parties and that the maintenance order was justified.
After examining the complaint, the High Court found that the allegations were mainly directed against the husband. As regards his parents, the Court found “no specific allegations or overt acts” except the general allegation that they supported their son.
The Court held that in the absence of specific allegations constituting domestic violence against the parents-in-law, continuing the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. It therefore quashed the proceedings against the husband's father and mother. The ruling underlines that family members cannot be made to face litigation merely through broad allegations based on their relationship with the husband; the complaint must disclose specific acts attributable to them.
Read Also:- Domestic Violence Against Men
However, the High Court did not quash the case against the husband, observing that sufficient material existed against him. It also refused to interfere with the Rs.7,000 monthly interim maintenance order. The Court noted that the marital relationship was undisputed, the wife claimed she could not maintain herself, and the husband was working as an engineer earning Rs.35,000 per month.
Accordingly, Criminal Petition No.101593 of 2025 was partly allowed, and the DV proceedings were quashed only against the husband's parents. Proceedings against the husband were allowed to continue. The Court dismissed Criminal Petition No.101594 of 2025, leaving the interim maintenance order intact. The trial court was also directed to expedite the case without unnecessary adjournments.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Section | What It Means | Application In This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 12, Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 | Enables an aggrieved woman to approach the Magistrate seeking reliefs available under the DV Act. | The wife initiated Criminal Misc. No.144/2023 under this provision. |
| Section 20, DV Act | Provides for monetary relief in appropriate cases, including expenses and maintenance arising from domestic violence. | The wife sought interim monetary relief/maintenance in the pending DV proceedings. |
| Section 23, DV Act | Gives the Magistrate power to grant interim and, where legally justified, ex parte orders. | Read with Section 20 for the wife's application that resulted in interim maintenance of Rs.7,000 per month. |
| Section 528, BNSS, 2023 | Preserves the High Court's inherent powers to prevent abuse of court process and secure the ends of justice. | Invoked before the Karnataka High Court for quashing/challenging the proceedings and orders. |
| Section 482, CrPC, 1973 | The earlier provision preserving the High Court's inherent powers. | The judgment's case heading identifies the petitions under “482(Cr.P.C)/528(BNSS)”. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | A v. R |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad |
| Bench | Justice Venkatesh Naik T |
| Decision Date | September 19, 2026 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:KHC-D:15584 |
| CNR | KAHC020075372025 |
| Main Petition | CRL.P No.101593 of 2025 |
| Connected Petition | CRL.P No.101594 of 2025 |
| Underlying DV Case | Criminal Miscellaneous No.144 of 2023 |
| Counsel For Petitioners/Husband | Sri Rohit N. Latur, Advocate |
| Counsel For Respondent-Wife | Sri Deepak S. Kulkarni, Advocate |
| Result | DV proceedings quashed against the husband's parents, but permitted to continue against the husband; husband's challenge to Rs.7,000 interim maintenance dismissed. |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- General Allegations Are Not Enough: Simply alleging that in-laws supported the husband cannot justify continuing a DV case against them.
- Specific Acts Must Be Shown: The Court found no specific allegations or overt acts of domestic violence against the husband's parents.
- Elderly Parents Got Relief: The 70-year-old father and 65-year-old mother were pulled into matrimonial litigation despite no independent role being specifically alleged against them.
- Case Against Husband Continues: The husband received no such relief. The DV proceedings against him will continue.
- Maintenance Also Continues: The husband's challenge failed, and he must continue paying Rs.7,000 per month as interim maintenance.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.