Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that that implicating all of a husband's relatives in a domestic violence case without specific allegations or evidence of their active involvement amounts to an abuse of the process of law.

A bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh observed that criminalizing domestic disputes without concrete allegations or credible evidence could have serious consequences for the family structure, which is founded on love, affection, harmony, and mutual trust.

When family relationships are sought to be brought within the ambit of criminal proceedings rupturing the family bond, courts should be circumspect and judicious, and should allow invocation of the criminal process only when there are specific allegations with supporting materials that clearly constitute criminal offences, the court underscored.

"Institution of family constitutes the core of human society. Domestic relationships, such as those between family members, are guided by deeply ingrained social values and cultural expectations. These relationships are often viewed as sacred, demanding a higher level of respect, commitment, and emotional investment compared to other social or professional associations. For these reasons, preservation of family relationship has always been emphasised upon," the bench said.

Court said it has to be kept in mind that in the context of matrimonial disputes, emotions run high, and as such in the complaints filed alleging harassment or domestic violence, there may be a tendency to implicate other members of the family who do not come to the rescue of the complainant or remain mute spectators to any alleged incident of harassment.

"This in our view cannot by itself constitute a criminal act without there being specific acts attributed to them. Further, when tempers run high and relationships turn bitter, there is also a propensity to exaggerate the allegations, which does not necessarily mean that such domestic disputes should be given the colour of criminality," the bench said.

Court, however, pointed out that genuine cases of cruelty and violence in the domestic sphere, which do happen, ought to be handled with utmost sensitivity.

"Domestic violence typically happens within the four walls of the house and not in the public gaze. Therefore, such violence is not noticed by public at large, except perhaps by the immediate neighbours. Thus, providing visible evidence by the victim of domestic violence may not be easily forthcoming and producing direct evidence may be hard and arduous, which does not necessarily mean that domestic violence does not occur," the bench said.

In fact, the court noted, to deal with this pernicious phenomenon, stringent statutes like the Protection from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, have been enacted with very expansive meaning and scope of what amounts to domestic violence.

"Since, violence perpetrated within the domestic sphere by close relatives is now criminalised entailing serious consequences on the perpetrators, the courts have to be careful while dealing with such cases by examining whether there are specific allegations with instances against the perpetrators and not generalised allegations," the bench said.

The court pointed out that the purpose and mandate of the law to protect the victims of domestic violence is of paramount importance, and as such, a balance has to be struck by ensuring that while perpetrators are brought to book, all the family members or relatives are not indiscriminately brought within the criminal net in a sweeping manner.

In such cases involving allegations of domestic violence or harassment, there would normally be a series of offending acts, which would be required to be spelled out by the complainant against the perpetrators in specific terms to rope such perpetrators in the criminal proceedings sought to be initiated against them, the bench said.

Dealing with an appeal filed by Geddan Jhansi and her husband, the court emphasised, mere general allegation of harassment without pointing out the specifics against such perpetrators would not suffice.

"We are, thus, of the view that in criminal cases relating to domestic violence, the complaints and charges should be specific, as far as possible, as against each and every member of the family who are accused of such offences and sought to be prosecuted, as otherwise, it may amount to misuse of the stringent criminal process by indiscriminately dragging all the members of the family," the bench said.

Court pointed out there may be situations where some of the family members or relatives may turn a blind eye to the violence or harassment perpetrated on the victim, and may not extend any helping hand to the victim, which does not necessarily mean that they are also perpetrators of domestic violence, unless the circumstances clearly indicate their involvement and instigation.

In the case at hand, the court noted the appellant, the younger sister of the complainant's mother-in-law, and her husband, lived in Hyderabad while the complainant-woman and her husband and mother-in-law lived in Chennai after their marriage in Puducherry.

"As the appellants do not stay together with the complainant and her husband and mother-in-law, to make the appellants as co-accused for alleged offences committed in the matrimonial house of the complainant on the basis of very generalised allegations does not appear to be tenable," the bench said.

Court, therefore, set aside two separate orders by the Telangana High Court, which declined to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and her husband for dowry harassment and domestic violence.

Case Title: Geddan Jhansi & Anr Vs The State of Telangana & Ors