Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has taken a strong stance against the misuse of legal provisions in marital disputes, particularly concerning allegations of sexual harassment involving minor children.

In a recent ruling, the court, presided over by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, criticised the practice of filing baseless complaints against husbands, emphasising the need for strict action against such misuse. Further, the court highlighted a troubling trend where minor children, including a three-year-old girl in the present case, being exploited as tools in marital conflicts.

The court's order came in response to a petition from a man seeking to dismiss a Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) case filed by his wife under the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act. The wife alleged her husband of sexually harassing his own 3 year old daughter, alleging the incident occurred on April 5, 2015. The complaint was, however, filed on July 4, 2015, after the husband filed a complaint to the police that, his wife and child were missing. The wife further alleged that her daughter complained on inflammation in her private part and she had her examined by a Gynecologist at a private hospital, where it was examined that the daughter had a serious infection on her private parts. However, the name of the Gynecologist, who allegedly examined the child was not disclosed.

The court, after examining the contentions of both the parties, stated that “Nowadays, the matrimonial disputes are leading to the registration of several cases between the parties, which never happened in earlier times. Here is a case where the petitioner (husband) and the 2nd respondent (wife) are educated people. Therefore, the court may believe the words of the mother at first blush. But, on a close perusal of the facts in this case, I am of the considered opinion that, this is a frivolous complaint submitted by the 2nd respondent with an ulterior motive to get the custody of the child. Such practice should not be allowed.”

The court noted that non disclosure the name of gynaecologist who treated the child by the mother raised suspicion on the veracity of the claims made by the wife. The court also found that the medical examination recorded by the trial court shows no injury on the private part of the child and her hymen was found to be intact, further weakening the wife’s claim.

Highlighting the severe consequences false allegations of child sexual exploitation in matrimonial disputes, the court emphasised that such claims cause emotional distress for the accused, the child, and other family members. The accused may face trauma, social ostracism, and reputational damage even if the allegations are later disproven. These false claims can lead to family breakdowns, custody battles, and long-term psychological effects on the child, who may also experience future embarrassment if the case records become accessible.

“False allegations against the father of the child at the instance of the mother can create a ripple effect, damaging community interest and relationships. All parties involved may experience lasting psychological and emotional scars. It is essential to approach such situations with sensitivity, prioritizing the child’s well being and seeking support from professionals such as counsellors, social workers or law enforcement agencies to ensure a fair and just resolution,” the court further highlighted.

The court observed that in her statement recored under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the child has said before the Magistrate that she likes her father more than her mother. “Even the child aged 3 years who is tutored to depose against her own father deposed before the Magistrate that she likes her father more than her mother,” the court said.

The court opined that POCSO Courts must carefully scrutinize cases involving accusations of sexual abuse, particularly in custody disputes. The court pointed to Section 22 of the POCSO Act prescribes penalties for false complaints, including imprisonment or fines, urging that if a prima facie case of false reporting is found, the police should investigate accordingly.

In this particular case, the court found the accusations against the father to be baseless and motivated by a custody dispute. Conclusively, the court held that “This is a fit case in which the prosecution against the petitioner who is the father of the victim is to be quashed.”

 

Cause Title: XXX v State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 5582 OF 2016]