No. In an order dated 19 August 2026, the Delhi High Court held that a father cannot be made liable under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, merely because he did not control his adult son. The Court dismissed a challenge to removing the father-in-law from the proceedings because the pleaded acts in this case did not show domestic violence by him. Proceedings against the husband were left unaffected.
What the Delhi High Court decided
In Smt. Deepali Mahajani v. State Through Chief Secretary & Ors., CRL.M.C. 6388/2023, Justice Madhu Jain considered whether the allegations in the application disclosed domestic violence by the petitioner’s father-in-law. The Court said: “A father cannot be made liable under the DV Act merely because he did not control the conduct of his adult son.” Read the Delhi High Court order.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The ruling is limited to the pleaded facts and the father-in-law’s role. It does not give fathers-in-law blanket immunity, decide that business-related conduct can never fall under the Act, or find that the allegations were false. The Court assessed whether the facts alleged, taken as stated, amounted to domestic violence by this particular respondent.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →What happened in the case
Mahajani married respondent No. 3 in 2006 and lived with him and his father in Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The couple adopted a daughter in 2012. There were also connected but separate business arrangements: the father-in-law operated a sole proprietorship, while Mahajani and her husband were partners in another enterprise that used the father’s business office, domain and email facilities. The parties disputed their business relationship and how expenses were handled.
#1 Best Overall
Mahajani invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to challenge an appellate court order dated 8 June 2023. That order had set aside a Metropolitan Magistrate’s 27 January 2020 direction to issue notice to the father-in-law under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The High Court dismissed her challenge. It expressly stated that the proceedings against her husband remained unaffected.
What was alleged against the father-in-law
The application described alleged conduct during a period of worsening matrimonial and business relations in 2017–2019. It said the father-in-law:
- failed to act against his son over the son’s alleged involvement with another woman;
- required the couple’s enterprise to leave his business office and discontinued the petitioner’s business email facility;
- told the petitioner, her husband and their daughter to leave the matrimonial home;
- threatened to take over or wind up the enterprise; and
- was dominating, orthodox and verbally abusive.
The father-in-law and husband denied the allegations. Their position was that the dispute involving the father-in-law was commercial, while the matrimonial dispute was between the spouses. The High Court did not decide whether the husband committed matrimonial misconduct or resolve the parties’ disputed business rights.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Why the allegations did not establish a claim against him
Not controlling an adult son was not enough
The Court found no participation by the father-in-law in the alleged matrimonial misconduct. A family relationship, by itself, did not make him responsible for his adult son’s alleged conduct. The pleaded acts had to show domestic violence attributable to the father-in-law himself.
The business allegations needed a link to a protected resource
The Court did not accept a categorical rule that commercial disputes fall outside Section 3 of the Act. Instead, it examined whether the application connected the alleged restrictions on the office, domain or email to a resource protected by the Act. It did not state that the petitioner had a right—under law, custom, necessity or the domestic relationship—to use the father-in-law’s office premises or facilities. Nor did the application explain how the alleged threat to take over or wind up the enterprise could affect her partnership rights.
The Court did not rely on the father-in-law’s disputed defence that access had only been permitted and was withdrawn after alleged misuse. Its conclusion rested on what the application itself alleged and explained.
The shared-household allegations did not set out a concrete threat
A right to reside in a shared household does not depend on ownership, and actual dispossession is not always necessary if a threat of dispossession is made out. But the application did not describe a consequence threatened or a concrete step to remove Mahajani, prevent her access, or disturb her possession. She continued to reside in the shared household. On the allegations set out, the Court found no threat of domestic violence by the father-in-law.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →General labels did not explain the alleged verbal abuse
The application said the father-in-law had “insulted”, “shouted” at and “abused” Mahajani, but did not say what was said or explain how the incidents caused mental harm or constituted insult, ridicule, humiliation or threat under Section 3. The Court described those words as conclusions without the facts underlying them. It did not hold that insults can never qualify as verbal or emotional abuse; it found the particulars in this application insufficient.
Best Value
What a court can consider at the notice stage
The Court distinguished assessing the legal sufficiency of allegations from deciding whether they are true. At the notice stage, a court cannot weigh evidence or resolve disputed facts, but it can ask whether the facts stated—without adding to them—amount to domestic violence. As the order put it: “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.”
That approach does not permit a premature decision on contested evidence. Here, the Court concluded that the pleaded acts did not make out domestic violence against this respondent.
What the ruling means for other cases
The decision is not a general answer to every claim involving an in-law or a family business. Its practical distinction is between a person’s relationship to the alleged abuser and that person’s own alleged conduct. A domestic relationship alone does not establish that each relative committed domestic violence.
- Identify the respondent’s own acts: allegations about a spouse’s conduct do not, without more, establish liability for a parent who did not participate.
- Give facts behind abuse allegations: describe the words or conduct and how they fit the statutory grounds, rather than relying only on labels.
- Explain the connection to protected rights or resources: where a business facility or home is involved, set out the relevant right, the alleged interference and its effect.
- Keep procedural outcomes distinct: removing one respondent at the notice stage does not decide the merits of proceedings against another respondent.
These are lessons from the Court’s reasoning in this case, not a checklist that guarantees an outcome in another matter.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
