New Delhi: The Supreme Court, while quashing a case filed by a wife against her husband and his family members for dowry and harassment, observing that 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 and said that 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.
A bench comprising Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh set aside an order of the Telangana High Court refusing to quash the case registered on the complaint of the wife against her husband and other family members, including her father-in-law and mother-in-law, under sections 498A (offences committed by the husband or relatives of the husband subjecting cruelty towards the wife) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
There is often a tendency to implicate all members of husband’s family, Apex Court observed
“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 bench said.
Family members have been dragged into web of crime without any rhyme or reason: Apex Court
The bench, while observing that the family members of the husband have no connection to the matter and have been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason, said that 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, 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.
“Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, 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 apex court said.
Not stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty should remain silent: Apex Court
The bench further said that it is not stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding but the court should not encourage a case like as in the present one.
“We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case,” the bench said.
