The Delhi High Court has held that a father cannot be made liable under the Domestic Violence Act merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son, dismissing a woman’s petition against the setting aside of notice to her father-in-law in a Domestic Violence Act complaint.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a woman challenging a Sessions Court order that set aside notice issued to her father-in-law in proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, holding that the allegations against him, even taken as true, did not disclose domestic violence [X v. State Through Chief Secretary and Others].
Justice Madhu Jain delivered the judgment on August 19, 2026 in CRL.M.C. 6388/2023. The proceedings against the woman’s husband are unaffected.
The case
The petitioner married respondent No. 3 on January 30, 2006 and lived with him and his father, respondent No. 2, at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The family was also connected through business: the father-in-law ran a sole proprietorship, while the petitioner and her husband were partners in an enterprise. After relations deteriorated between 2017 and 2019, she initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against both men, alleging verbal, emotional and economic abuse.
The Metropolitan Magistrate issued notice to both respondents on January 27, 2020. On the father-in-law’s appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge on June 8, 2023 set aside the notice against him, finding that the allegations arose substantially from commercial dealings and did not disclose domestic violence. The petitioner then approached the High Court.
Her counsel contended that the application contained specific allegations of verbal, emotional and economic abuse that required a trial, and that the domestic and business relationships overlapped, so that restricting her office access and threatening a business takeover amounted to abuse. The father-in-law’s counsel argued that, even if the allegations were accepted as true, they concerned commercial arrangements and business decisions and not abuse within a domestic relationship.
Scope at the notice stage
Justice Jain held that a domestic relationship alone is not enough, and explained what a court may examine when deciding whether notice should issue:
“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 five allegations
Examining the five alleged acts, the Court held that:
“A father cannot be made liable under the DV Act merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son.”
On the remaining allegations, the Court found that the application did not establish that the petitioner had any right to the father-in-law’s business premises or facilities under law, custom or necessity; that his statement that the family should leave and live separately was not an act of dispossession, as there was no actual dispossession or prevention of access; that bare assertions that he “insulted” or “shouted” without facts did not amount to verbal or emotional abuse under Section 3 of the Act; and that the evidence led later about his contact with his son identified no act of domestic violence.
The petition was dismissed, and a pending application was allowed only to the extent that the documents were taken on record.
Why The Domestic Violence Act Judgment Matters
The ruling underlines that a domestic relationship, by itself, does not make every family member liable under the Domestic Violence Act: the application must state facts that amount to domestic violence, and conclusions such as “insulted” or “shouted” are not enough. It also clarifies that, at the notice stage, a court tests the application on its own facts without weighing evidence, but that this is not a mini-trial in which any allegation must proceed. The allegations in the complaint remain allegations, and the proceedings against the husband continue.
Case Title: X v. State Through Chief Secretary and Others [CRL.M.C. 6388/2023]
Bench: Justice Madhu Jain, Delhi High Court
Date of Judgment: August 19, 2026
Appearance: Mr. Dhruv Chawla, Mr. Nitin Kumar, Mr. Vipul Kanwar and Ms. Harshita Pal for the petitioner; Mr. Ravi Kumar Aggarwal and Mr. Ishaan Aggarwal for respondent No. 2; Mr. Vineet Chaudhary and Mr. Santosh Chaudhary for respondent No. 3