Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ms. Ambreen Akhoon, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.5.2015 passed by the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai in Petition No. A-1086 of 2013. The Family Court had allowed an application under Section 9A and Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) filed by Respondent No. 2, the mother-in-law, seeking deletion from the proceedings on the ground of misjoinder. The Family Court framed a preliminary issue as to whether Respondent No. 2 is a necessary party. The petitioner, who is the wife, had filed a petition for divorce under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 read with the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act), impleading her mother-in-law as a respondent. The legal issue was whether relief can be sought against a relative of the husband in proceedings under Section 26 of the DV Act before the Family Court. The petitioner argued that Section 2(q) of the DV Act specifically allows a complaint against a relative of the husband, and Section 26 permits the court to grant relief under the DV Act in any legal proceeding. The respondent mother-in-law contended that the Family Court has jurisdiction only between parties to a marriage and that she is not a necessary party. The High Court analyzed the provisions and held that the proviso to Section 2(q) clearly permits an aggrieved wife to file a complaint against a relative of the husband. Section 26 of the DV Act allows the court to grant relief under the DV Act in any proceeding before it, including a Family Court. Therefore, the mother-in-law is a proper party, and the Family Court's order framing a preliminary issue on necessity was erroneous. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Family Court to proceed with the petition without deleting the mother-in-law.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Domestic Violence - Impleadment of Relative - Section 2(q) and Section 26 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - The issue was whether a mother-in-law can be made a party to proceedings under the DV Act before the Family Court - The Court held that Section 2(q) proviso specifically allows an aggrieved wife to file a complaint against a relative of the husband, and Section 26 permits relief under the DV Act in any legal proceeding, including before the Family Court - Therefore, the mother-in-law is a proper party and cannot be deleted under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether relief can be sought against the relative of the respondent-husband in proceedings filed under Section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the Family Court?
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 11.5.2015 passed by the Family Court, Bandra, and directed the Family Court to proceed with the petition without deleting the mother-in-law as a party.
Law Points
- Section 2(q) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act
- 2005 permits complaint against relative of husband
- Section 26 of DV Act allows relief in any legal proceeding
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC not applicable to delete necessary party under DV Act
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO.5648 OF 2015
Mr. Rajiv Wagh for the Petitioner, Ms. Nidhi Shukla i/b Ashwin Duggal for Respondent No.1, Ms. Mrunalini Deshmukh for Resp. No.2
Shri Aditya Aurn Paudwal & anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Family Court order allowing deletion of mother-in-law from proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 11.5.2015 passed by Family Court, Bandra, which allowed application under Section 9A and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to delete mother-in-law as party.
Filing Reason
The Family Court framed a preliminary issue on whether mother-in-law is a necessary party, which the petitioner contended was erroneous in view of Section 2(q) of DV Act.
Previous Decisions
Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai passed order dated 11.5.2015 in Petition No. A-1086 of 2013 allowing application under Section 9A and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC and framing preliminary issue.
Issues
Whether relief can be sought against relative of husband in proceedings under Section 26 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before Family Court?
Whether mother-in-law can be deleted as party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in DV Act proceedings?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that Section 2(q) proviso allows complaint against relative of husband, and Section 26 permits relief under DV Act in any legal proceeding, so mother-in-law is a proper party.
Respondent mother-in-law argued that Family Court has jurisdiction only between parties to marriage, and she is not a necessary party.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 2(q) proviso of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, an aggrieved wife may file a complaint against a relative of the husband. Section 26 of the Act allows the court to grant relief under the Act in any legal proceeding, including before the Family Court. Therefore, the mother-in-law is a proper party and cannot be deleted under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
This Writ Petition involves a question of law as to whether any relief can be sought against the relative of the respondent – husband in the proceedings filed under section 26 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the Family Court?
Provided that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may also file a complaint against a relative of the husband or the male partner;
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Petition No. A-1086 of 2013 before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai for divorce under Special Marriage Act, 1954 r/w Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, impleading mother-in-law as respondent. The mother-in-law filed application under Section 9A and Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for deletion. The Family Court allowed the application and framed preliminary issue on 11.5.2015. The petitioner challenged this order by way of Writ Petition No. 5648 of 2015 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005: 2(q), 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 9A, Order 1 Rule 10
- Special Marriage Act, 1954:
