The Gujarat High Court, in dismissing an FIR filed by a woman who accused her husband and his family of dowry demands and cruelty, emphasized that tolerance is essential for a strong marriage. The court also observed that in many cases, the wife’s family tends to “make a mountain out of a molehill.”
In its 44 page judgment a single judge bench of Justice Divyesh A Joshi noted that many times in such cases, the parents and close relatives of the wife make a “mountain of a mole“. It thereafter said, “instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues”.
The Court further noted that the wife, along with her parents and relatives, often turns to the police as their first response, treating it as a “cure-all” for their problems. However, involving the police “almost immediately” can remove any chance for fair reconciliation between the spouses.
The Court then emphasized, “A strong marriage is built on tolerance, adjustment, and mutual respect. Every marriage needs a certain level of tolerance for each other’s faults. Minor disagreements and trivial differences are ordinary matters and should not be exaggerated or blown out of proportion, risking the destruction of what is meant to be a lasting union.”
The Court further noted that the wife, along with her parents and relatives, often turns to the police as their first response, treating it as a “cure-all” for their problems. However, involving the police “almost immediately” can remove any chance for fair reconciliation between the spouses.
The Court then emphasized, “A strong marriage is built on tolerance, adjustment, and mutual respect. Every marriage needs a certain level of tolerance for each other’s faults. Minor disagreements and trivial differences are ordinary matters and should not be exaggerated or blown out of proportion, risking the destruction of what is meant to be a lasting union.”
Court should discern oblique motive of including husband’s, relatives’ name in FIR
Justice Joshi also stated that if the court is “convinced” that the woman’s allegations against her husband and his close relatives were made with an “ulterior motive,” then, even if the FIR and chargesheet indicate the commission of a cognizable offense, the court should, in the interest of substantial justice, “read between the lines to uncover the ulterior motive” of the complainant and take a “pragmatic approach” to the case.
“If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute,” the high court underscored.
Matrimonial dispute between spouses, family members roped in ‘as usual’
Noting the allegations in the FIR, the high court said that the matrimonial dispute seemed to be between the husband and the wife, “wherein as usual, all the family members have been roped in as accused persons”.
It thereafter said, “It is an admitted position of fact, which can be supported by above facts that the applicants are residing separately and 16 months prior to registration of the impugned FIR, the respondent no.2 (complainant woman) is residing at her parental home, which she has specifically stated in the FIR itself and thus, it can safely be said that the applicants are involved in the aforesaid offence as they are close relatives of the main accused – husband“.
Ingredients of alleged offences in FIR not made out
Referring to the facts of the case and the allegations in the FIR, the High Court noted that the elements needed to prove the alleged offenses—including IPC Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace), criminal intimidation, and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act—were not fulfilled in relation to the applicants, who were the “close relatives” of the main accused, the husband.
The court’s decision came in response to a plea filed by the husband and his relatives challenging a 2019 FIR filed by the wife. The couple, who married in 2017, had a daughter during their marriage. The wife’s brother-in-law argued that he was working in Vadodara at the time of the alleged incidents. The plea described the FIR as a retaliatory action by the wife after the husband filed an application in the Family Court seeking her return. It is also noteworthy that she had left the marital home 16 months before filing the FIR.
Based on the facts of the case and the allegations in the FIR, the High Court observed that the charges under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 504 (intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace), criminal intimidation, and the Dowry Prohibition Act did not apply to the “close relatives” of the main accused, the husband.
The court reached this decision in response to a plea from the husband and his relatives challenging a 2019 FIR filed by the wife. The couple, who married in 2017, had a daughter during their marriage. The wife’s brother-in-law claimed that he was working in Vadodara at the time of the alleged incidents. The plea characterized the FIR as a retaliatory move by the wife after the husband filed a case in Family Court seeking her return. Notably, she had left the marital home 16 months before filing the FIR.
When can S. 482 inherent power be invoked
Referencing the Supreme Court’s judgment in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (1960), the High Court stated that when an accused seeks to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, arguing that the proceedings are clearly frivolous, vexatious, or motivated by an “ulterior motive of revenge,” the court has a responsibility to review the FIR with “additional care and scrutiny.”
The High Court thereafter said, “We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence”.
The court further questioned why the investigating agency didn’t file a chargesheet against the other accused if the allegations in the FIR were valid. It pointed out that the accusations were made not only against the husband but also against his parents, brother, and sister. The High Court remarked that the police’s decision not to charge the others suggests that even the investigators believed the FIR was merely an emotional reaction to a marital dispute.
Hypersensitive approach would be disastrous for the marriage
The court stressed the importance of evaluating what constitutes cruelty on a case-by-case basis, taking into consideration the physical and mental conditions of the parties involved, along with their character and social status.
“A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned,” the Court highlighted.
The Court noted that, rather than addressing the issue delicately, initiating criminal proceedings would only foster animosity between the parties. It acknowledged that there can be genuine cases of ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family toward the wife, with varying levels of severity.
Children often main sufferers
It further said that often in matrimonial disputes, children are the main sufferers. It further added, “The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children“.
Police machinery to be used only in genuine cruelty cases
However, the court warned that the police should be involved only as a last resort and only in genuine cases of cruelty and harassment. It emphasized that the police should not be misused to hold the husband hostage, enabling the wife to take advantage of the situation under the influence of her parents, relatives, or friends. The court stressed that not every minor annoyance or trivial irritation between spouses amounts to cruelty, and Section 498A of the IPC should not be applied automatically in every case where a wife alleges harassment or mistreatment.
While concluding the Justice Joshi observed that after examining the facts in its entirety the FIR is “nothing but an sheer abuse of the process of law and if the same is allowed to be continued, in that invent, it would be nothing short of abuse of process of law and travesty of justice” .
Finding it a fit case to invoke the court’s inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the high court allowed the husband and the relatives’ plea and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising out of it.
