COURTS MUST METICULOUSLY EXAMINE THE FACTS OF A CASE AND PREVENT THE MISUSE OF LEGAL PROVISIONS IN MATRIMONIAL DISPUTES

A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh passed a judgement in Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Ors. v. State of Telangana & Anr. SLP (Crl.) No. 16239 of 2024 wherein the Bench held that although Section 498A of IPC was introduced to protect the interests of women but the provision has been increasingly misused as a means to settle personal vendetta, thereby deviating from its intended purpose of protecting women.

Facts

The marriage between the Appellant No. 1 (Husband) and Respondent No. 2 (Wife) was solemnized on 08.03.2015 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. Appellant Nos. 2-6 are the relatives of the husband (parents-in-law and sisters-in-law). Following their marriage, the couple lived in Jollarpeta, Tamil Nadu, where Appellant No. 1 was employed with Southern Railways. They had two children, born in 2016 and 2017. The Respondent alleged that her father gave dowry to the Appellants at the time of her marriage, which included ₹10 lakhs in cash, 10 tolas of gold, and household items. Furthermore, he incurred ₹5 lakhs in marriage expenses.  Respondent No. 2 further stated that Appellant No. 1 demanded additional dowry, harassed her physically and mentally, and had an extramarital affair. Moreover, Appellant Nos. 2-6 instigated Appellant No. 1 to demand more dowry.

Respondent No. 2 filed a FIR bearing no. 82 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022 against the Appellant and Accused No. 7 (brother-in-law) for cruelty under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and under Section 3 (Penalty for giving or taking dowry) and 4 (Penalty for demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Respondent No. 2 (wife) claimed that Appellant No. 1 subjected her to physical and mental harassment over dowry demands.

Later, the Appellant No. 1 and 7 filed a Petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) (Saving of inherent power of High Court) to quash the FIR in the Telangana High Court. However, the Hon’ble High Court vide Order dated 16.02.2024 rejected to quash the FIR. Furthermore, the High Court directed the Investigation Officer to follow the prescribed procedures under Section 41A (Notice of appearance before police officer) of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the High Court granted protection from arrest until the Chargesheet was filed.

The Appellants provided that the complaint filed against them were completely false and vague in nature. Thus, aggrieved by the decision of Telangana High Court, the Appellants appealed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the Order dated 16.02.2024.

Issues

1) Whether the allegations laid down by the Respondent No. 2 were vague and not supported by evidence?

2) Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the plea for quashing of proceedings against the Appellants?

Decision by the Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court dived into the provision of 498-A IPC which provides for the offence of cruelty by husband and his family members. The Hon’ble Court found that the allegations in the FIR were vague, general, and lacking specific details (e.g., dates, times, or concrete incidents of harassment).

The Bench noted that the Appellant Nos. 2-6 did not reside with the couple and were unnecessarily implicated without any due reason. The Hon’ble Court also stated that the wife left the matrimonial home multiple times in the due course of her marriage without providing any specific reasons. She also addressed a letter to the police admitting her actions and acknowledging Appellant No. 1’s good conduct. Furthermore, it was noted that she filed the FIR shortly after Appellant No. 1 sought divorce, which clearly indicated a retaliatory motive and could be seen as an afterthought.

The Apex Court highlighted the misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes, cautioning Courts against allowing vague allegations to lead to criminal prosecution. The Court also referred to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal AIR 1993 SC 1348 for categories where criminal proceedings can be quashed to prevent abuse of process.

The Hon’ble Court emphasized that Section 498A of the IPC should not be misused as a retaliatory tool in cases of marital discord, particularly when the complaint is filed by the wife following a petition for divorce.

The Supreme Court also cited the precedent set in Preeti Gupta vs. State of Jharkhand 2010 CRI. L. J. 4303, which underscored the severe distress caused by criminal trials, even in cases resulting in acquittal. It further highlighted the need for Courts to meticulously examine the alleged involvement of individuals not closely connected to the marital household.

Thus, the Supreme Court after analyzing the facts and circumstances of the case ruled that the Telangana High Court erred in not quashing the case. Accordingly, the Court quashed the FIR against the Appellants.

Conclusion

The Apex Court set aside the Order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the High Court and emphasized the importance of preventing the misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial disputes, reiterating that Section 498A was enacted to safeguard women from cruelty. However, it noted that the provision has increasingly been exploited as a tool for personal vendettas, undermining its original purpose.

 

ARJAV JAIN

ASSOCIATE

THE INDIAN LAWYER & ALLIED SERVICES

 

Editor’s Comments

The last few years one has witnessed several false cases filed by wives against their husband and in-laws under the Domestic Violence Act and 498 A of the Indian Penal Code. It seems these false cases are filed only so that the so that the so called aggrieved women get one last chance to take out their entire frustration on the husband and the in-laws. The level of torture that innocent men go through when these cases are filed can be seen by the facts of the Bengaluru Techie Subhash Atul’s suicide that happened on 9 December 2024. The suicide note clearly specified that the suicide was a result of undue harassment, false cases and the poor, way that courts handle these cases. The suicide note and video recording of Atul Subash is a wake up call to the legal system in India. In recent years courts have time and again held that the provisions of the criminal law and the Domestic Violence Act are being regularly misused by wives only to get vendetta. This case is another example.

 

Edited by-

Sushila Ram

Advocate and Chief Consultant