A non-legally married woman may invoke the Domestic Violence Act against domestic violence.

The petitioner-husband and respondent No. 2 were married on 9 February 2000 and had two children, who had attained adulthood by the time of the proceedings.

The wife alleged that the petitioner subjected her and the children to physical and mental cruelty, assaulted them, threatened them with a licensed firearm, abandoned the matrimonial home, abused her, concealed his earlier marriage, compelled her to leave the matrimonial home, and failed to provide maintenance.

She had earlier lodged an FIR under Section 498A of the IPC in 2013.

The wife initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”).

The Magistrate called for a Domestic Incident Report (“DIR”) on 9 May 2022 and, after considering the DIR, found prima facie material and issued process against the petitioner on 17 August 2022.

The petitioner sought quashing of DV Case No. 84M/2002, contending that the respondent was not his legally wedded wife because he had an existing marriage, that he had been acquitted in the Section 498A IPC case on 19 January 2026, and that the parties’ children were adults.

Whether the proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act could be maintained by the respondent despite the petitioner’s contention that she was not his legally wedded wife because of his prior marriage.

Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC/Section 528 of the BNSS to quash the DV proceedings for alleged insufficiency of material, the petitioner’s acquittal in the Section 498A IPC case, and the parties’ changed circumstances.

Whether the Magistrate’s order issuing process after considering the DIR disclosed any gross illegality, incorrectness, or injustice warranting interference.

The Court applied Section 2(a) of the DV Act, under which an “aggrieved person” is any person who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the respondent and alleges domestic violence; consequently, a legally valid marriage is not invariably necessary to invoke the Act.

It also applied Section 12 of the DV Act, which permits an aggrieved person to seek relief before the Magistrate on allegations of domestic violence.

Relying on Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1158, the Court held that proceedings arising from a Section 12(1) DV Act application may be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, but that such power must be exercised with caution and circumspection and ordinarily only in cases of gross illegality or injustice.

The Court further held that acquittal in a Section 498A IPC prosecution does not automatically terminate DV Act proceedings, since the latter are distinct in nature and do not require proof according to the criminal-trial standard of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The allegations in the complaint and the DIR disclosed prima facie assertions of physical, mental, and economic abuse, including assault, threats, abandonment, verbal abuse, and failure to provide maintenance.

These allegations were sufficient to invoke the Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 12 of the DV Act.

The petitioner’s objection that the respondent was not his legally wedded wife did not defeat the proceedings because Section 2(a) focuses on the existence of a domestic relationship and alleged domestic violence, rather than exclusively on the validity of the marriage.

The petitioner’s assertions that he lived separately, that the children were adults, and that he had been acquitted under Section 498A IPC involved factual matters or proceedings governed by a different legal standard and therefore could not justify quashing at the threshold.

Since no gross illegality, impropriety, or injustice was demonstrated in the Magistrate’s order, the restrictive principles governing inherent jurisdiction precluded interference.

The petitioner’s acquittal in the Section 498A IPC case and the adulthood of the children were held irrelevant to the maintainability of the DV proceedings.

Finding no gross illegality or injustice warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction, the Gauhati High Court dismissed the criminal petition and declined to quash DV Case No. 84M/2002.