In the matter of Vanisha v. XYZ & State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court on April 20, 2021, quashed the proceedings initiated by a mother (Respondent No. 1) under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) against the daughter (Petitioner) by noting that the allegation levelled by the mother is exaggerated and her anger and bitterness arising from matrimonial discord with her husband are leading to serious impediment in the progress of her own daughter, i.e. the Petitioner.

The respondent No. 1 had filed an application under certain sections of the D.V. Act before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate against her husband, stating matrimonial discord between them. An interim order was passed by the learned magistrate, thereby issuing certain directions against the husband. The said order has been challenged by way of appeal by him along with the petitioner before the Sessions Court.

The Petitioner has filed the current petition seeking quashing of proceedings initiated by her mother claiming that she is facing the ire of her mother due to matrimonial discord between her mother and her father and that she has been unnecessarily dragged into the said proceedings pending before the Court of Magistrate and that, this is having a detrimental effect on her career as also her prospects of studying abroad. 

The Respondent claimed that the Petitioner was not required to go abroad for studies and that this was only an excuse given by her to escape facing the proceedings pending before the Magistrate. Further, the Respondent made certain statements made about the character of the Petitioner and that she allegedly has many boyfriends. 

The Court held that: – 

1. The intent of the DV Act is to ensure that a woman who faces abuse at the hands of her husband or a male partner has an avenue to raise her grievance against such person and also any relative of such person. 

2. A perusal of the application filed by the Respondent No.1 before the Magistrate would show that the entire grievance is raised against her own husband. It is only at one place of the application that an allegation is made against the Petitioner that on the husband of Respondent No.1 instigating the Petitioner, she allegedly assaulted the Respondent No.1. 

3. It appears that the single allegation made against the Petitioner is an exaggeration and it has arisen out of anger of Respondent No.1 against the Petitioner, as she continued to reside with her father.  

4. The allegation levelled by the Respondent No.1 against the Petitioner is exaggerated and her anger and bitterness arising from matrimonial discord with her husband, is leading to serious impediment in the progress of her own daughter i.e. the Petitioner. 

5. The allegation seems to be made in a fit of anger and they could be said to be improbable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 

6. Therefore, the Court invoked and exercised its constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w its inherent powers u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C. and quashed the proceedings filed against the Petitioner.