1. Since all the matters are arising out of an identical factual background between the same parties and involve common questions of law and fact, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The first petition, MCRC No. 50392 of 2023 , is filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of the complaint preferred under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short '' DV Act'') and all consequential proceedings in MJCR No.1273/2022. The complaint filed by respondent/wife Smt. Rakhi Sharma alleges continuous harassment, demand of dowry of ₹5,00,000/-, physical assault, misappropriation of her deceased husband's service benefits, and dispossession from the shared household. She has also alleged molestation by her father-in-law after the death of her husband.

3. The second matter is Criminal Revision No. 4957 of 2023 preferred under Sections 397/401 CrPC challenging the order dated 23.09.2023 passed in Appeal No.364/2023 affirming the trial Court's order dated 26.05.2023. The trial Court had directed the creation of an FDR of ₹5,00,000/- in favour of the minor child, Anaisha Pathak, and has also awarded interim maintenance of ₹2,000/- per month to the wife and ₹1,000/- per month to the minor child under Section 23 of the DV Act.

4. The third petition, MCRC No. 51679 of 2023 , is filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR bearing Crime No.43/2022 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Gwalior, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 294, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as well as all consequential proceedings. The FIR reiterates allegations of dowry harassment, beatings on 26.12.2021 and 27.12.2021, expulsion from the matrimonial home, misappropriation of the deceased husband's financial assets, and threats to life.

5. The fourth petition, MCRC No. 53441 of 2023 , is filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of the complaint under Section 200 CrPC in RCT No.2407/2023 alleging commission of offence under Section 406 IPC pertaining to criminal breach of trust of dowry articles/stridhan.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners had submitted before this Court that all complaints are afterthought and mala fide. It is urged that private respondent initiated the proceedings only after the death of her husband and after the maturity amounts of mutual fund and insurance were transferred to the nominees, namely, the mother-in-law and brother-in-law. According to the petitioners, the delay in lodging the complaints raises serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations.

7. It was further contended that the wife rarely stayed at the matrimonial home and used to create nuisance and the petitioners asserted that they had themselves informed the police regarding her allegedly taking the jewellery away. Petitioner No.1 is a retired Class-IV employee receiving a pension of only ₹14,373/-, that he has undergone cardiac surgery and is facing other litigation, and therefore cannot pay maintenance.

8. While placing reliance on Sections 19 and 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), it was argued that a father-in-law is liable to maintain a widowed daughter-in-law only if she cannot maintain herself from her own property or from the estate of her husband or parents, and such obligation is limited to coparcenary property. The mother-in-law is herself a dependent.

9. It was reiterated by the petitioners that the complaints are mala fide , lodged only after the death of the husband and transfer of funds to the nominees. The complaints were made months or years after the alleged incidents and such delay is said to be fatal and indicates concoction as no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioners, that the complainant mostly resided in Rewari with her husband, and allegations of dowry harassment and assault are false and exaggerated.

10. It was further submitted that the petitioners had themselves lodged a report alleging that the wife had taken away jewellery from the house. Petitioner No.1, a 68-year-old pensioner, underwent cardiac surgery in May 2022 and also has to contest separate litigation against tenants. The brother- in-law is stated to have his own liabilities.

11. It was further argued that petitioner No.1 voluntarily made an FDR of ₹5,00,000/- on 28.01.2022 in favour of his granddaughter Anaisha for her future security. According to the petitioners, despite such gesture, the respondent instituted false criminal cases. It was thus argued that FIR and complaints do not disclose ingredients of Sections 498-A or 406 IPC and the proceedings amount to abuse of process. Reliance is placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 to contend that the matter falls within categories warranting quashing.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the State, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, submittted that the allegations are consistent, specific, and contain detailed instances of cruelty, dowry demand, physical and mental abuse, and misappropriation of assets. It was submitted that the delay stands fully explained by continuous threats, social stigma, and dependence on the matrimonial family.

13. Learned counsel for the complainant stressed that prima facie evidence exists and therefore proceedings cannot be quashed at the threshold. It was argued that maintenance is justified considering the financial capacity of petitioners and the dependent status of the widow and child. It was submitted that factual disputes cannot be adjudicated in a petition under Section 482 CrPC.

14. It was further contended that the allegations disclosed cognizable offences including persistent dowry demands, physical assault, threats, expulsion, and misappropriation of property. The FIR and complaints contain minute and consistent details which cannot be brushed aside at the quashing stage.

15. It was further submitted that the delay is sufficiently explained and according to the complainant, she was under threat, socially constrained, and dependent on the matrimonial family. After being expelled along with a minor child and after the death of her husband, she mustered courage to file complaints. Allegations of sexual misconduct by the father-in-law are stated to be serious and incapable of scrutiny in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.

16. It was emphasised that the DV Act is A beneficial legislation, intended to protect women subjected to physical, emotional, economic, or sexual abuse. The reliefs under the Act can be granted even against in-laws residing in the shared household. It was argued that nominee is not the owner and the benefits received by the mother-in-law and brother-in-law as nominees are held in trust for the legal heirs and cannot be used to defeat the widow's rights.

17. It was further submitted that interim maintenance has been correctly awarded, as the wife and minor child have no independent source of income. The petitioners possessed sufficient means. At the threshold, the Court cannot hold a mini trial. Disputed facts must be adjudicated at the stage of evidence.

18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and documents available on record.

19. It is settled that quashing of criminal proceedings is an exception and not the rule. FIR or complaint may be quashed only where the allegations do not disclose any offence or where the matter falls squarely within the categories enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) . At the quashing stage, the Court cannot appreciate evidence or conduct a mini trial. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the power to quash must be exercised sparingly and with caution, and at this stage the allegations must be assumed to be true. (See Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460; Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 20 SCC 473.)

20. On perusal of the allegations made by the complainant, it appears that she had made specific allegations of repeated dowry demands of ₹5,00,000/-, beatings and physical violence, misappropriation of stridhan and service benefits, expulsion from the matrimonial home, sexual misconduct by the father-in-law, threats to life, and non-maintenance of the widow and minor child. These allegations prima facie constitute offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 294, 506 IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and also constitute domestic violence under the DV Act. Thus, none of the petitions fall within the categories laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra).

21. On perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the complainant had alleged persistent demand of ₹5 lakhs, physical assault, threats to kill, misappropriation of assets, expulsion from the home, and harassment even after the death of her husband. The allegations require investigation and trial. Hence, quashing is unwarranted.

22. With respect to the challenge to the interim maintenance order, it is well settled that interim maintenance under Section 23 of the DV Act is intended to provide immediate relief to the aggrieved woman. The DV Act is social welfare legislation and the complaint alleges economic abuse through misappropriation of the deceased husband's funds, physical and mental violence, sexual harassment by the father-in-law, deprivation of the shared household, and non-maintenance. These allegations require adjudication and cannot be discarded summarily.

23. So far as the liability of the father-in-law is concerned, it is now settled that the DV Act does not exclude such liability and the Courts have held that even persons other than the husband may be directed to provide monetary relief. [See:- V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot, (2012) 3 SCC 183; S.D. Bhinge v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3211.) The DV Act, being a special beneficial statute, prevails over general laws such as HAMA where inconsistent.

24. The directions to create an FDR of ₹5,00,000/- for the welfare of the minor child cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal, as both the Courts below have considered the dire financial needs of the respondent and the petitioners' financial capacity. No perversity or illegality is demonstrated in the concurrent findings.

25. The complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging criminal breach of trust of stridhan also contains specific assertions regarding wrongful retention of jewellery and misappropriation of the deceased husband's investments. The Supreme Court in Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, reported in (1985) 2 SCC 370, has held that stridhan must be returned and failure attracts Section 406 IPC. Therefore, the complaint cannot be quashed.

26. The scope of revision under Sections 397/401 CrPC is narrow. Interference is permissible only when the order suffers from perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error. [See:- State of Rajasthan v. Fatehkaran Mehdu, (2017) 3 SCC 198]. No such infirmity is pointed out. The Sessions Court has rightly upheld the interim maintenance and FDR direction. Thus, the criminal revision lacks merit.

27. In view of the foregoing discussion, all petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC, as well as the criminal revision preferred by the petitioners, are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed.

28. No order as to costs.