Bombay High Court Drops Cruelty Case Filed by Judge Against Husband and In-laws

A division bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain observed that the first information report (FIR) seemed to have been lodged only as a counterblast to the matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife.

The Bombay High Court, in a recent ruling, rendered null a complaint alleging cruelty brought forth by a judicial officer against her husband and his family members pursuant to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A division bench comprising Justices AS Chandurkar and Jitendra Jain opined that the filing of the first information report (FIR) appeared to have been motivated solely as a retaliatory measure within the context of the matrimonial discord between the spouses.

“This is a perfect case where this Court should exercise its jurisdiction to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court to secure the ends of justice,” the Court observed in its February 9 order while quashing the FIR.

The judicial officer in Maharashtra contracted marriage with her spouse subsequent to their introduction via a matrimonial platform, resulting in their union in February 2018.

According to the wife’s assertions, following their matrimonial bond, the husband abstained from engaging in a marital relationship, prompting numerous discordant situations between them.

Additionally, the wife’s grievances recount an incident transpiring on June 7, 2023, wherein the husband, accompanied by his sibling, purportedly invaded her judicial chambers, coercing her to endorse a mutual consent divorce petition. This act was allegedly duplicated by her in-laws later on the same day. Consequently, the complaint posits that such actions obstructed her judicial obligations on that specific day.

Subsequently, on July 9, 2023, in response to the occurrences of June 7, the wife formally lodged a complaint with law enforcement authorities against her husband and in-laws, culminating in the registration of an FIR under Sections 186, 353, 498A, and 506 of the IPC. The temporal scope of the alleged transgressions outlined in the FIR spans from October 1, 2018, to June 7, 2023.

Dissatisfied with the FIR, the husband and in-laws petitioned the High Court, seeking its quashing.

Upon scrutiny, the Court discerned no concrete evidence indicating that the husband and in-laws impeded the wife’s judicial obligations, neither during the morning nor afternoon sessions. Furthermore, the Court noted that during the afternoon session, the relatives refrained from entering the courtroom, instead awaiting the judicial officer in her chamber, where proceedings were voluntarily adjourned by her.

“There does not appear to be any obstruction to the wife in discharge of her public function but on the contrary, she discharged her official duties on that day and, therefore, the provisions are not attracted. The act of retiring to the chamber is a voluntary act of the informant on being told by her peon,” the Court noted.

The Court also concluded that there was no evidence of the husband using force to intimidate or induce fear in the wife, thus impeding her performance as a judicial officer.

Furthermore, the High Court determined that the discord and disputes between the complainant and her in-laws, including her husband, did not meet the threshold for constituting an offense under Section 498A of the IPC.

Based on these findings, the Court nullified the FIR filed against the husband and his relatives.