Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142191 Court No. - 91 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 869 of 2024 Revisionist :- Smt Archana Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Vinay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Prasoon Kumar,Sarvjeet Kumar Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the revisionist as well as Sri Sarvjeet Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This criminal revision has been filed with prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 22.01.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, (Crime Against Women), Mathura in Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2023 (Raju alias Rajesh vs. State and Ors) U/s 29 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the opposite party no.2 has filed a complaint under Section 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 & 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the court of Civil Judge (J.D)/ FTC, Mathura. During the proceeding an application being paper no. 10 B for discharge was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging that he is mamiya sasur (maternal father-in-law) and he has been made a party on legal advice only for the purpose of blackmailing, while he is not related to any domestic relationship as defined under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. After hearing the parties, the learned court below has rejected the discharge application vide order dated 18.04.2023, against the opposite party no.2 preferred an appeal before the appellate court and the appeal was allowed vide order dated 22.01.2024, while setting aside the order dated 18.04.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.01.2024 the revisionist has filed the present revision. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the order impugned passed by the appellate court is per se illegal and arbitrary as the same has been passed without application of mind as the maternal father-in-law (mamiya sasur) falls within the family of her husband. It is further submitted that the appellate court has also not considered the statement of the informant/victim before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. The learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and the learned A.G.A. have opposed the present criminal revision by contending that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned so as to warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present criminal revision including the impugned order. 7. The main issue involved in the instant matter is that whether the maternal father-in-law (mamiya sasur) falls under the definition of Section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 8. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 drawing the attention of this Court at page 18 which is the application filed by the opposite party no.2 before the court below in which at page no.3, it is mentioned that she was being tortured by her husband namely Himanshu, mother-in-law namely Smt. Beena, brother-in-law namely Mr. Jeetu and mamiya sasur namely Raju alias Rajesh (opposite party no.2). Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist herself admitted that opposite party no.2 Raju alias Rajesh S/o Devaki Nandan Chaturvedi is maternal uncle of her husband i.e. maternal father-in-law of the revisionist and he does not fall within the definition of Section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act which is quoted hereunder: "domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family" 9. For the purpose of domestic relationship, the parties must be related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together. Since the present revisionist is admitted that opposite party no.2 is the mamiya sasur (maternal father-in-law) and he cannot be considered as a family member of the husband of revisionist as provided under Section 2(f) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. 10. In view of the considered opinion that opposite party no.2, being mamiya sasur (maternal father-in-law) of the revisionist does not fall under the definition/ category of domestic relationship as of relationship between the revisionist and her husband, therefore, the allegation made by the revisionist is not directly established. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.01.2024. The same is in correct perspective in the eyes of law. 11. Accordingly, the present criminal revision lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 C. MANI CRLR No. 869 of 2024 2 Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad