The Court also observed that marriages are not merely a social contract but a spiritual union that binds two souls together.
The Bombay High Court’s Nagpur bench recently highlighted the growing misuse of matrimonial laws and emphasized the judiciary’s responsibility in fostering amicable and respectful resolution of such disputes [ARP v State of Maharashtra].
Justices Nitin Sambre and MM Nerlikar observed that statutes like the Domestic Violence Act, the Hindu Marriage Act, and the Special Marriage Act were originally designed to strengthen marital bonds. However, they are increasingly being misused, resulting in a surge of litigation and adding to the burden on the courts.
“We are experiencing that, Legislation intended to improve marital relationships, such as the Domestic Violence Act, the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act etc., are frequently misused by parties, resulting in multiplicity of litigation, that not only burdens the Court, but, also cause mental as well as physical harassment, endless conflict, financial loss and irreversible harm to children and other family members. In such cases, the Court should support a respectful settlement to terminate all litigation between the parties while protecting their life and liberty, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.
The Court also expressed concern over the growing fragility of modern marriages, highlighting the broader social impact of such disputes.
“Marital discord has now a days become menace in the society due to various factors. The parties who are fighting due to these marital discord are having several remedies in law. The small issue between the two are spoiling the entire life and the marriages which are sacrosanct in Hindus are at stake. Marriages are not merely a social contract, but, a spiritual union that binds two souls together. However, now a days these scared marriages receive set back in the above circumstances. The distress, disharmony and lack of adjustment amongst the persons lead to conflict.
“The observations were made by the Court while quashing criminal proceedings against four family members implicated in a matrimonial dispute. The case involved applications filed by a man, his two sisters, and his maternal aunt, who were named in a First Information Report (FIR) registered by his wife in December 2023 at the Beltarodi Police Station in Nagpur.
The FIR invoked charges under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) and 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The wife had alleged that her husband and his family subjected her to physical and mental cruelty, sexual assault, dowry-related harassment, and digital invasion of privacy. A charge sheet was filed, and trial proceedings began before the Magistrate’s court.
However, following a settlement between the parties, they were granted a mutual consent divorce by the family court on July 1, 2025. The complainant later submitted an affidavit to the High Court, expressing her decision to withdraw the criminal case. She also appeared in person and affirmed her consent to quash the proceedings.
The High Court noted the settlement and divorce and agreed that there was no point in continuing the case.
“We are of the opinion that matrimonial disputes, if re-union is not possible, shall be put to an end as early as possible otherwise the life of persons will be ruined, if it is permitted to go on and would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.
The Court also noted the growing number of criminal cases in matrimonial disputes and stressed the importance of courts helping couples resolve such matters peacefully.
“Needless to mention that considering the recent trend of filing first information reports against as many as persons from husband side, has become imperative to look the matters of matrimonial disputes from a different angle, and therefore, if the parties settle their disputes amicably in order to live peacefully, it is the duty of the Court to encourage such action by entertaining the prayer for quashing of the first information report, charge sheet or criminal proceedings,” the Bench said while quashing the case.