Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has quashed an FIR filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws in a domestic violence (DV) case, ruling that a woman cannot withdraw from statements or undertakings made in consent terms during a legal settlement.
Bench Emphasises Sanctity of Settlements
A bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Rajesh Patil, on September 9, emphasised that allowing such a retraction would undermine the legal process, particularly when a mutual agreement had been reached by both parties, in India and Australia, where they have been residing since marriage in 2004.
Complaint Dates Back to 2009 FIR
A First Information Report (FIR) was registered in February 2009 by the woman, who accused her husband and his parents of cruelty, criminal breach of trust, and intimidation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The couple married in 2004. She later alleged that she was subjected to harassment by her in-laws and misled about her husband’s profession and education. She filed several complaints, including for cruelty, criminal breach of trust, and criminal intimidation.
Settlement Reached in India and Australia
However, after years of legal battles, the couple arrived at a mutual settlement. In November 2016, the parties entered into consent terms both in Australia and later in Mumbai, agreeing to resolve the matter amicably.
As part of the agreement, the woman had committed to supporting the quashing of the FIR. But when she later sought to withdraw from the consent terms, citing changing circumstances, the petitioners — her husband and in-laws — challenged this move.
Court Rejects Woman’s Withdrawal Plea
The court noted that both the woman and her husband had been living in Australia since 2004, with the woman filing various complaints while living apart from her husband. Despite the ongoing legal disputes, the consent terms had been agreed upon by both parties in Australia and Mumbai, and they had been intended to bring the matter to a close.
The bench pointed out that allowing the woman to retract her earlier consent would contradict established legal principles that protect the sanctity of settlements.
“We are of the opinion that, in the present proceedings, the Respondent No.2 (woman), should not be permitted to withdraw from the statements/undertakings given by her in the Consent Terms,” the bench said.
FIR Found to Lack Substantive Evidence
In its judgment, the court also found that the allegations in the FIR lacked sufficient evidence to substantiate charges of cruelty or criminal intimidation.
Also Watch:
“In our view, the FIR or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie disclose the commission of any offence and there is no material to substantiate the allegations made therein,” the bench concluded while quashing the FIR.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
