Matrimonial news: The Madras High Court has issued a warning regarding the common practice of involving entire families in matrimonial disputes, emphasizing that relatives cannot be compelled to face criminal trials solely due to their association with the husband. This ruling comes while the court upheld the prosecution of the husband himself.
In a recent case, Justice L Victoria Gowri addressed a petition submitted by an estranged husband along with seven of his relatives, who sought to have criminal proceedings against them dismissed. These proceedings were initiated by the All Women Police Station in Bodinayakanur following a complaint from the estranged wife alleging cruelty.
The court articulated on June 1 that, “Criminal law should not be triggered against every family member of the husband merely due to marital discord… The criminal justice system should act as a protective measure for genuinely wronged individuals, rather than becoming an instrument of revenge. It is crucial to approach matrimonial disputes that escalate to criminal accusations with careful judicial consideration.”
Records indicate that the couple was married on June 29, 2015, and they have a son born on July 30, 2016. The wife accused her husband of various forms of cruelty, claiming that his relatives supported his behavior. She further alleged that he was involved in an extramarital affair.
Specific incidents recorded in her complaint include an alleged assault on November 8, 2022, during which the husband reportedly assaulted and verbally abused her, forcibly taking her mobile phone. She claimed he assaulted her again on November 11, 2022, demanding access to the phone’s password. The complaint was lodged on January 30, 2023, leading to the filing of a criminal case, with a final report submitted by police on December 22, 2023.
The husband faces charges under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 498-A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 294(b) (use of obscene language in public), 323 (causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt with dangerous means), and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation). His relatives were charged under Section 498-A IPC as well.
The petitioners contended that the complaint arose from typical marital disagreements and that the husband’s relatives were wrongly implicated. They noted that the couple had separated shortly after marriage, initially residing in Tiruppur and subsequently in police quarters in Bodinayakanur, where the husband served as a police constable. They argued that the relatives neither lived with the couple nor contributed to their domestic issues.
Additionally, they highlighted an approximately 80-day delay in filing the complaint and argued that no medical evidence supported the allegations of assault.
Upon reviewing the complaint, chargesheet, and investigation details, the high court determined that the accusations against the husband were distinct from those against his relatives. Justice Gowri remarked that the complaint included specific allegations concerning the husband’s actions on November 8 and November 11, 2022, necessitating a full trial to ascertain their validity.
The court noted, “The allegations against him are not merely generalized,” pointing out that the complaint detailed specific instances of assault, abuse, and intimidation involving the husband. Consequently, the plea to dismiss the case against him was rejected, as the court found sufficient grounds for prosecution.
While the high court partially approved the petition by dismissing the criminal proceedings against the husband’s seven relatives, it denied the request concerning the husband and instructed the judicial magistrate court in Bodinayakanur to continue the trial against him in adherence to legal procedures.
The court clarified that its observations were confined to the quashing petition and should not influence the trial court’s assessment of evidence during the trial.
Vineet Upadhyay serves as an Assistant Editor at The Indian Express, where he oversees specialized reporting on the Indian legal system.
Expertise
Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has dedicated a significant portion of his career to analyzing legal complexities. His expertise includes elucidating judgments from the Supreme Court of India and various High Courts and District Courts, covering a wide range of legal matters such as:
Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark decisions related to privacy, equality, and accountability of the state.
Criminal Justice & Enforcement: In-depth coverage of notable cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO issues.
Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative articles addressing medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (highlighting the “living person” status of rivers), and labor rights.
With over a decade of professional experience, Vineet has previously worked as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held key positions at The New Indian Express, reporting from pivotal legal centers, including Delhi and Uttarakhand.
