POSH Act vs Marital Dispute: Allahabad HC to Examine Sexual Harassment Complaint by Wife Against Husband

A marital dispute between two employees working in the same office has prompted the Allahabad High Court to examine whether the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) can be invoked when the allegations against one spouse arise primarily out of their marital discord.

The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia, while hearing a plea by the husband challenging disciplinary action against him, stayed the proceedings and said the matter required consideration as to whether such disputes could be brought under a law “intended for a different purpose".

How did the marital dispute reach the workplace?

The couple were married and worked in the same office. Court noted they initially stayed together as husband and wife, but differences developed during a visit to Hemkund Sahib, following which the wife filed a complaint under the POSH Act.

In her complaint, she alleged that on October 9, 2024, the husband used foul language and made derogatory remarks against her in the office in front of colleagues. The complaint, however, did not disclose that the two were married.

Separately, the wife lodged an FIR on December 28, 2024, alleging that the husband had used caste-related words, demanded dowry and subjected her to physical and verbal abuse. The FIR invoked Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(gha), and 3(1)(da) of the SC/ST Act, Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Sections 352, 351(2), 115(2), 117(2) and Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [corresponding respectively to Sections 504, 506, 323, 325 and 498A of the IPC]. It stated that a complaint had been made on October 9 and that attempts at reconciliation had failed before the FIR was lodged.

What did the POSH committee find?

The POSH committee examined the allegations and witness statements and noted that the couple had been facing marital discord even before the October 9 incident. It said their colleagues came to know about their marriage after an earlier episode on April 2, 2024. The committee also recorded that from then on, the two would discuss their personal issues publicly and with fellow colleagues.

The committee said marital disputes could leave a person “tensed/frustrated” with their personal life, but “no one gets the right to disrespect each other at workplace”. It stressed that workplace dignity and decorum had to be maintained.

“If a female employee is someone's wife at the same premises does not give him right to treat his wife the same way as he does in his home,” the committee said, adding that at the workplace, “both are individual employees & not the couple”.

After examining witness testimony, the committee found that the wife also taunted the husband, though it did not consider her conduct indecent. It, however, held that the husband's actions and “continuous muttering” fell within the definition of sexual harassment under the POSH Act.

The committee also recorded that the husband had taken his wife's wallet on the assumption that, being her husband, he had the right to search her bag without her consent. It further said he continued making objectionable remarks despite resentment from colleagues and was allegedly making such remarks even on the day he was relieved from the office.

What action was taken against the husband?

Based on the committee's recommendations, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the husband. The committee had also recommended action against both employees for not disclosing their marital status for more than a year.

While the wife was given only a censure entry, a formal charge was framed against the husband alleging that he had made “inappropriate, offensive and sexually colored remarks” against her, thereby affecting the work atmosphere in the office.

The husband challenged the proceedings before the high court, arguing that the marital dispute had been dragged into the POSH proceedings and that the law and criminal provisions were being misused to settle scores with him. The respondents, however, argued that the allegations related to his conduct in the office and justified an inquiry.

The high court has not given a final finding on whether the POSH Act was wrongly invoked. It has sought a counter affidavit from the respondents within four weeks and a rejoinder within two weeks.

Until further orders, court has stayed the disciplinary proceedings arising from the August 22, 2025 charge sheet.

Case title: Ravi Kant Yadav v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi & 6 Others

Order date: August 10, 2026

Bench: Justice Pankaj Bhatia