The Supreme Court strongly struck down the “increasing trend of misusing provisions like Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code” to protect married women “as an instrument of personal vendetta by the wife against the husband and his family”.
A bench of Justices B Nagarathna and Kotiswar Singh said on Tuesday, “Inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC through amendment was meant to prevent cruelty to a woman by her husband and her family, ensuring swift intervention by the state. However, in recent years, there has been growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage. Along with the significant increase in matrimonial disputes across the country, as a result, there is an increasing trend of misuse of provisions like Section 498A of the IPC by a wife and her family A tool for unleashing personal vendettas against.”
Writing for the bench, Justice Nagarathana said that “vague and general allegations during matrimonial conflict, if not investigated, would encourage abuse of legal processes and arm-twisting tactics by the wife and/or her family”. .
The bench was hearing a petition filed by a man, his parents and three sisters against the order of the Telangana High Court which rejected their prayer to quash the charges against them.
Dismissing the FIR against them under Section 498A of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and certain provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Supreme Court said, “On a cursory perusal of the FIR, the allegations made by respondent No. 2 (husband’s wife) are vague and pervasive. . Apart from claiming that ‘her husband molested her and others incited her to do so’, she did not provide any specific details or describe any specific instance of harassment. She has not mentioned the time, date, place or manner of the alleged abuse. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. “
The bench added, “Considering the facts of this case and the timing and context of the FIR, we find that the wife left the matrimonial home on 03.10.2021 after quarreling over her interaction with the ‘husband’. Third person in their marriage. Thereafter cordial relationship. She returned to the matrimonial home after assuring to keep… “But, she left the matrimonial home again. When the husband issued a legal notice for divorce on 13.12.2021 did, the present FIR was lodged by the wife on 01.02.2022.Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR lodged by the wife is ‘not a genuine complaint, rather it is a retaliatory measure to settle scores with her husband and his family members’.
The bench said, “It is noteworthy that the woman has not only ‘abandoned’ her husband, but also abandoned her two children, who are now in the care and custody of the husband.”
The bench said the petitioner’s parents and sisters “had nothing to do with the matter at hand and were drawn into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason”. A perusal of the FIR indicates that no concrete and specific allegations have been leveled against them other than inciting the husband to “demand more dowry”, it added.
The bench further said, “Mere reference to the names of family members in criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement, should be nipped in the bud. This is borne out by the judicial experience that when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial disputes, the tendency is often to implicate all the members of the husband’s family.” is a well-recognized fact.
“Such generalized and sweeping allegations, unsupported by concrete evidence or specific allegations, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts should exercise caution in such cases to avoid abuse of legal provisions and legal process and to protect innocent family members from unnecessary harassment.”
The court said that the relatives of the persons named in the FIR “are living in different cities and do not live in the husband’s matrimonial home”. “Therefore, they cannot be criminally prosecuted and in the absence of specific charges leveled against each of them, there will be an abuse of process of law,” it added.