"Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinised, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family," a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh said.

 

The court pointed out 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, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, it said, it is leading to growing tendency among the women to rope in husband and relatives by making generalised allegations.

 

"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. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them," the bench said.

 

The court, however, clarified it was 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 observations," the bench said, as it allowed a petition filed by Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others against the Telangana High Court's order of February 16, 2024 refusing to quash the FIR lodged by his wife against him and his five family members under Section 498 A of the IPC on February 1, 2022.

 

The appellants contended that the FIR was lodged as a counterblast to a notice for divorce sent by the husband, without any specific allegations. The husband claimed the wife used to leave the matrimonial house uninformed. In fact, on one such occasion when she left the matrimonial house on October 03, 2021, he made a police complaint. Subsequently, she was allegedly living with someone else. She again left the matrimonial home leaving behind the husband and two children.

 

The state counsel opposed the plea, saying as per the FIR, the wife was harassed both physically and mentally for want of additional dowry and that the husband used to come home in a drunken state and used to have an illicit affair with another woman.

 

Having examined the matter, the court noted the FIR lacked concrete and precise allegations.

 

"Therefore, we are of the opinion that the FIR filed by respondent No. 2 (wife) is not a genuine complaint rather it is a retaliatory measure intended to settle scores with appellant No 1 (husband) and his family members," the bench said.

 

The court pointed out that the allegations made by the wife in the FIR seemed to be motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance. Further, the allegations attributed against the appellants are vague and omnibus, it said.

 

"Furthermore, it is noteworthy that respondent No 2 has not only deserted appellant No 1 but has also abandoned her two children as well, who are now in the care and custody of appellant No 1," the bench said, noting the submission that the wife had shown no inclination to re-establish any relationship with her children.

 

The court found that the husband's relatives had no connection to the matter at hand and had been dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason, with no substantial and specific allegations other than stating that they used to instigate appellant No 1 for demanding more dowry.

 

"It is also an admitted fact that they never resided with the couple namely appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 and their children," the bench said.

 

The court held they could not be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.

 

"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," the bench said.

 

"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.

 

The court felt it should not encourage a case like the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC was 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.

 

The court held that the FIR was initiated with ulterior motives to settle personal scores and grudges against appellant No 1 and his family members.

 

The bench thus set aside the High Court's order and quashed the FIR, charge sheet and further proceedings pending in the Malkajgiri court.