Bombay HC Flags Trend Of Wives Dragging In-Laws Into Matrimonial Disputes, Quashes FIR Against 7 In Washim Case

Mumbai: Expressing concern over what it termed a “growing trend” of wives dragging their in-laws into criminal litigation arising from marital discord, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday quashed a cruelty and dowry-harassment case against seven members of a Washim family.

“It is noticed that nowadays, in proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord, there is a tendency of the wife to implicate the husband and his family members in the web of crime,” observed a bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Pravin Patil on June 9. “The police complaint is considered the only panacea to teach a lesson to the family members of the husband,” it added.

The HC passed the order while hearing a plea by the husband’s relatives seeking to set aside a case pending before a Washim magistrate. They had been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the IPC, as well as Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

According to the FIR lodged on August 30, 2023, the complainant alleged that after her marriage on June 2, 2014 she was repeatedly insulted as “a beggar’s daughter”, harassed for insufficient dowry and beaten by her husband, who allegedly questioned her character. The prosecution argued that witness statements recorded during investigation pointed to the involvement of all eight accused.

The court, however, noted that substantive allegations were directed solely at the husband, against whom a divorce petition has been pending before the civil court at Mehkar since June 2022. “There are no specific allegations disclosing the date, time, place or manner in which harassment was meted out by the relatives,” it said, calling the accusations “vague and general”.

It also recorded that the wife had left the matrimonial home in June 2022 and was the subject of a missing-person complaint filed by the husband before he moved the divorce court. These circumstances showed “serious marital dispute” but did not, by themselves, wholly justify prosecution of the wider family.

Finding “no prima facie case” against applicant Nos. 2 to 8, (family members) the bench quashed the FIR and the ensuing criminal proceedings against them, while allowing the case against the husband to proceed on its merits.