General Allegation That In-Laws Supported Husband Not Enough To Invoke Domestic Violence Act: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has quashed domestic violence proceedings against a husband's parents, holding that a general allegation that they supported their son, without any specific allegation or overt act of domestic violence, cannot justify continuation of proceedings against them. The case against the husband, however, will continue. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 379]Justice Venkatesh Naik T was...
The Karnataka High Court has quashed domestic violence proceedings against a husband's parents, holding that a general allegation that they supported their son, without any specific allegation or overt act of domestic violence, cannot justify continuation of proceedings against them. The case against the husband, however, will continue. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 379]
Justice Venkatesh Naik T was hearing two petitions filed by the husband and his parents. While the parents sought quashing of the entire proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the husband also challenged an order directing him to pay ₹7,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife.
The Court, on examining the allegations in the wife's application, noted that they were principally directed against the husband. It further noted that there were no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to the husband's parents, except the general allegation that they supported the husband.
“….Upon perusal of the allegations made in the application filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, it clearly demonstrated that the allegations were principally directed against petitioner No.1-husband. The trial Court further observed that there are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to petitioner Nos.2 and 3[in-laws], except the general allegation that they supported petitioner No.1[husband]. In the absence of specific allegations constituting domestic violence against petitioner Nos.2 and 3, continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law…”, the court noted in the order.
According to the husband, among the allegations cited against him by the wife were that he suffered from erectile dysfunction, did not speak to his wife, failed to open the door when she returned home, failed to recharge subscriptions such as Netflix and Amazon, and allegedly concealed grocery items from her in the kitchen. Therefore, he sought the quashing of proceedings as against him and his parents.
To the contrary, the wife's version is that her husband and his parents began harassing her after a few months and demanded additional dowry. According to her, the husband neglected her and subjected her to various acts of domestic violence.
The bench sitting at Dharwad also upheld an interim maintenance order of Rs 7,000 per month in favour of the wife, considering that the husband was an engineer earning Rs 35k per month.
On the interim maintenance, the Court noted that the marital relationship between the husband and wife was not disputed. It further noted that in light of the wife's contention that she was unable to maintain herself whereas the husband was working as an engineer earning Rs 35k per month, the trial court was justified in awarding Rs 7,000 per month, and the First Appellate Court had rightly affirmed the order.
The trial court has been directed by the High Court to expedite the matter without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Case Title: A v. R
Case Nos.: Crl.P No.101593/2025 connected with Crl.P No.101594/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 379
For the Petitioners: Sri Rohit N. Latur, Advocate
For the Respondent: Sri Deepak S. Kulkarni, Advocate