A domestic violence complaint cannot be stretched to rope in every relative of the husband without specific allegations against them. Applying that principle, the Karnataka High Court quashed the proceedings against a woman’s elderly parents-in-law, against whom only general allegations were made, while allowing the case, and the interim maintenance ordered, to continue against the husband, against whom it found sufficient material.
Dharwad: The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) against the parents-in-law of a woman, holding that, in the absence of specific allegations of domestic violence attributed to them, continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law [Ashirvad and Others v. Rashmi].
Justice Venkatesh Naik T, allowing in part the husband’s family’s petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), quashed the case against the husband’s father and mother, while permitting it to continue against the husband; in a connected petition, the Court upheld an order of interim maintenance against the husband.
The case
The wife had instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act against her husband and his parents, alleging that, some months after the marriage in 2022, she was harassed and subjected to acts of domestic violence, including a demand for additional dowry. During the pendency of the proceedings, the trial court, on her application, directed the husband to pay interim maintenance of Rs 7,000 per month from the date of the petition; the husband’s appeal against that order was dismissed by the Sessions Court, and he approached the High Court.
The husband’s parents, aged about 70 and 65 and both retired, contended that there were no specific allegations of domestic violence against them, that the allegations were principally directed at the husband, and that they had no independent role in the alleged incidents; continuing the proceedings against them, they argued, would be an abuse of process. The wife opposed the petitions, contending that the parents-in-law were necessary and proper parties, that the proceedings should not be quashed at the threshold, and that the interim maintenance had been rightly granted.
Quashing against the in-laws
On perusing the complaint, the Court found that the allegations were principally directed against the husband, and that there were no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to the parents-in-law, except a general allegation that they had supported the husband. In the absence of specific allegations constituting domestic violence against them, the Court held, continuation of the proceedings against the parents-in-law would amount to an abuse of the process of law, and was liable to be quashed. As regards the husband, however, the Court held that there was sufficient material, and permitted the proceedings against him to continue.
The Court’s approach reflects a well-recognised caution against the omnibus implication of a husband’s relatives in matrimonial cases: while genuine allegations against family members must be tried, relatives cannot be dragged into proceedings on vague, general or omnibus assertions unsupported by specific acts, as that subjects them to the ordeal of litigation without a foundation.
Interim maintenance upheld
On the interim maintenance, the Court declined to interfere. It noted that the marital relationship between the husband and the wife was not disputed, that the wife had contended she was unable to maintain herself, and that the husband was working as an engineer earning about Rs 35,000 per month; in those circumstances, the trial court was justified in awarding interim maintenance of Rs 7,000 per month, and the First Appellate Court had rightly affirmed it. Finding no sufficient ground to interfere, the Court upheld the interim maintenance and dismissed the husband’s connected petition, directing the trial court to expedite the matter without unnecessary adjournments.
Why it matters
The order draws a careful line that recurs in matrimonial litigation: between the husband, against whom the specific allegations are made, and other family members implicated only in general terms. Courts have repeatedly cautioned against the tendency to array all of a husband’s relatives as respondents without attributing specific acts to each; where the complaint discloses no specific allegation of domestic violence against a particular relative, the proceedings against that relative may be quashed as an abuse of process, even as the case proceeds against the spouse against whom a case is made out. The quashing here is confined to the parents-in-law and does not touch the case against the husband.
On maintenance, the order reaffirms that interim maintenance under the D.V. Act is assessed on the admitted relationship, the wife’s inability to maintain herself, and the husband’s capacity to pay; an appellate court will not lightly disturb a concurrent, fact-based assessment of interim maintenance. The husband’s challenge to the quantum, on the ground that assets-and-liabilities affidavits had not been exchanged before the order, did not persuade the Court to interfere at the interim stage, particularly where two courts had already considered the matter.
Nothing has been finally decided on the wife’s allegations, which remain to be tried; the quashing against the in-laws is a threshold finding that the complaint discloses no specific case against them, and the continuation of the proceedings against the husband is not a finding of guilt. The allegations are untested, and the husband is entitled to the presumption of innocence, while the wife’s case against him will now be decided by the trial court, which has been directed to proceed expeditiously.
Case Title: Ashirvad and Others v. Rashmi [Crl.P. No. 101593 of 2025 c/w Crl.P. No. 101594 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Venkatesh Naik T, High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad | Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC-D:15584
Date of Order: September 19, 2026
Status: D.V. Act proceedings quashed against the parents-in-law for want of specific allegations; proceedings and Rs 7,000 monthly interim maintenance upheld against the husband. Allegations untested; trial to proceed expeditiously.