Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80941 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6649 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Vijay Rani And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kiran Tiwari,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Mahesh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants, who are 4 in number and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the entire proceeding of Case no- 106960/2024 (Shalini verma versus Smt. Vijay Rani and others) relating to order dated 22.10.2024 passed by Civil judge (JD)- 1/FTC, Agra under section 12 domestic violence act. P.S. Shahganj, District-Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that applicant no.1 is the mother, applicant no.2 is father, applicant no.3 is brother and applicant no.4 is bhabhi of O.P. No.2. Submission is that O.P. No.2 had solemnized marriage with one Ajay Verma and out of their wedlock the son Vihan was born, however, on account of differences, the O.P. no.2 has remarried. However, as per the complaint, the son of the O.P. No.2 is with maternal grand-parents and despite the same, O.P. No.2 has lodged proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act claiming variety of reliefs under Sections 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Act. It is also contended that even with respect to the custody of the child proceedings have also been lodged by O.P. No.2 under the Guardian and Wards Act and the present proceedings are not maintainable, particularly when the applicants do not answer the description of the domestic relationship under Section 2(f), respondents as 2(q) and there is no shared household under Section 2(s). Less to say about aggrieved party under Section 2(a), particularly when no such proceedings can be drawn against the parents. He further submits that the order dated 22.10.2024. issuing notice to the applicant be set aside and the complaint itself be declared null and void. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that once only notices have been issued, thus it would be open for the applicant to contest the said proceedings and in case any order is passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act, then it is amenable to challenge under Section 29 by way of Appeal or under Section 25 of the Act. 5. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully. 6. So far as the question with regard to the fact as to whether the daughter would be an aggrieved person, in so far as reliefs are claimed, the parents are concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabha Tyagi vs. Kamlesh Devi, Crl. Appeal No.511 of 2022 decided on 12.05.2022, had recognized the rights of her daughter while holding that the word 'women' as mentioned in Section 2(a) is not restricted to the wife. Further a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Naimullah Sheikh and another vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, Matters under Article 227 No. 3046 of 2023 decided on 10.01.2024, has also reiterated the said law. As regards other aspects relating to arraigning the applicants in the proceeding while terming them to be respondents under Section 2(q) is concerned, obviously relief has been sought against them. Once no orders whatsoever has been passed under Chapter IV of the 2005 Act and in view of the nature of the relief sought in the complaint, this Court is not required to delve into the merits of the matter as the same are subject matter of proceedings which would culminate into an order, which would further be amenable to challenge by way of appeal under Section 29 of the 2005 Act. At this stage learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants shall be contesting the matter while filing reply. However, direction be issued to the court below to consider each and every contention so raised in that regard. It goes without saying that once any contention legal or factual which is germane to the controversy is raised, then this Court has no reason to disbelieve that the same will be considered in correct perspective. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the application is rejected. Order Date :- 16.5.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad