new delhi, DEC 11
The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the “growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code” intended to protect married women “as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife”. A bench of Justices B Nagarathna and Kotiswar Singh said on Tuesday, “The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.” Writing for the bench, Justice Nagarathna said that “making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm-twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family”. The bench was hearing a plea filed by a man, his parents and three sisters-in-law against a Telangana High Court order that rejected their prayer to quash the charges against them.
Quashing the FIR against them under section 498A and certain provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, the Supreme Court said, “A bare perusal of the FIR shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 (wife of the man) are vague and omnibus.
Other than claiming that ‘her husband harassed her and that the others instigated him to do so’, she has not provided any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has also not mentioned the time, date, place, or manner in which the alleged harassment occurred. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations.”
The bench added, “Given the facts of this case and in view of the timing and context of the FIR, we find that the wife ‘left the matrimonial house on 03.10.2021 after quarrelling with’ her husband ‘with respect to her interactions with a third person in their marriage. Later she came back to her matrimonial house assuring to have a cordial relationship’… “However, she again left the matrimonial house. When the husband ‘issued a legal notice seeking divorce on 13.12.2021, the present FIR came to be lodged on 01.02.2022 by’ the wife. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by the wife ‘is not a genuine complaint, rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with her husband and his family members’.”
The bench said “it is noteworthy that the woman ‘has not only deserted’ her husband ‘but has also abandoned her two children as well, who are now in the care and custody of’ the husband.
The bench said the applicant’s parents and sisters-in-law “have no connection to the matter at hand and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason”. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that no substantial and specific allegations have been made against them other than stating that they used to instigate the husband “for demanding more dowry”, it added.
The bench further said, “A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, should be nipped in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband’s family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. “Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete evidence or particularised allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members.”
The court said that the man’s kin who were named in the FIR “have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of” the husband. “Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them,” it added.
