The Punjab and Haryana High Court, acting with “great caution,” has instructed a comprehensive examination of any complaint or First Information Report (FIR) filed by a wife accusing her husband of being in an “illicit relationship.” This measure aims to prevent the husband from being embroiled in baseless legal disputes.
Justice Alok Jain, while noting that the protection petition filed by the wife and her partner lacks merit and constitutes an “abuse of legal procedures,” made this observation.
“The petitioner No.1 being a woman has ample rights in the matrimonial home but apparently, in the present case, it seems that the petitioners have been caught in their illicit relationship and dismissal of this petition may lead to lodging of various litigations against the husband by petitioner No.1, who is apparently not even aware of the deeds of the wife.”
As a matter of abundant caution, the Court has issued a directive necessitating a meticulous investigation in the event of a wife instituting a complaint or lodging a First Information Report (FIR) against her husband on the specified grounds. The purpose of this directive is to ensure that her husband is shielded from unwarranted legal entanglements.
These pronouncements were made in the context of a protection plea advanced by a married couple with prior matrimonial commitments and offspring. Following a comprehensive assessment of the petition, the Court determined that it lacked legal merit and constituted a manifest abuse of due legal processes.
The Court has also underscored the imperative for substantive and credible evidentiary support should the wife opt to file an FIR against her husband, alleging dowry-related demands or threats to her life. Moreover, it has elucidated that should a case already be pending, it will be adjudicated in accordance with established legal protocols.
Furthermore, the Court has unambiguously communicated that the spouses of the petitioners are entitled to construe the initiation of the protection plea as a manifestation of cruelty towards them.
Upon noting the withdrawal of the petition, the Court dismissed it, opting to refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, despite the potential imposition of punitive costs, thereby demonstrating a lenient disposition.