Tolerance is Key in Marriage, but Courts Must Be Cautious of False FIRs Driven by Overreactions from the Wife’s Family: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court, while quashing an FIR filed by a woman accusing her husband and his family of dowry demands and cruelty, stressed that tolerance should be the foundation of a strong marriage. However, the court noted that in many such cases, the wife’s family tends to “make a mountain out of a molehill.

In its 44 page judgment a single judge bench of Justice Divyesh A Joshi noted that many times in such cases, the parents and close relatives of the wife make a “mountain of a mole“. It thereafter said, “instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues”.

The Court further observed that the wife, along with her parents and relatives, often turns to the police as their first response, viewing it as a “cure-all” for their issues. However, the involvement of the police “almost immediately” can eliminate any fair opportunity for reconciliation between the spouses.

The Court thereafter stressed, “The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven.”

Court should discern oblique motive of including husband’s, relatives’ name in FIR

Justice Joshi further stated that if the court is “convinced” that the woman’s accusations against her husband and his close relatives were made with an “ulterior motive,” then, even if the FIR and chargesheet reveal the commission of a cognizable offense, the court should, in the interest of substantial justice, “read between the lines to uncover the ulterior motive” of the complainant and adopt a “pragmatic approach” to the case.

“If a person is made to face a criminal trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of the process of the court. The court owes a duty to subject the allegations levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a matrimonial dispute,” the high court underscored.

Matrimonial dispute between spouses, family members roped in ‘as usual’

Noting the allegations in the FIR, the high court said that the matrimonial dispute seemed to be between the husband and the wife, “wherein as usual, all the family members have been roped in as accused persons”.

It thereafter said, “It is an admitted position of fact, which can be supported by above facts that the applicants are residing separately and 16 months prior to registration of the impugned FIR, the respondent no.2 (complainant woman) is residing at her parental home, which she has specifically stated in the FIR itself and thus, it can safely be said that the applicants are involved in the aforesaid offence as they are close relatives of the main accused – husband“.

Ingredients of alleged offences in FIR not made out

Referring to the facts of the case and the allegations in the FIR, the High Court observed that the elements required to establish the alleged offenses, including IPC Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace), criminal intimidation, and provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, were not met concerning the applicants—the “close relatives” of the primary accused, the husband.

The court’s decision followed a plea filed by the husband and his relatives challenging a 2019 FIR lodged based on the wife’s complaint. The couple, who married in 2017, had a daughter during their marriage. The wife’s brother-in-law contended that he was working in Vadodara at the time of the alleged incidents. The plea characterized the FIR as a retaliatory action by the wife after the husband had filed an application in the Family Court for her return. It is noteworthy that she had left the marital home 16 months before filing the FIR.

Referring to the facts of the case and the allegations in the FIR, the High Court noted that the charges under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 504 (intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace), criminal intimidation, and the Dowry Prohibition Act were not applicable to the “close relatives” of the main accused, the husband.

The court made this decision in response to a plea from the husband and his relatives against a 2019 FIR filed by the wife. The couple married in 2017 and had a daughter during their marriage. The wife’s brother-in-law argued that he was working in Vadodara when the incidents allegedly occurred. The plea described the FIR as a retaliatory action by the wife after the husband filed a case in Family Court seeking her return. Notably, she had left the marital home 16 months before filing the FIR.

When can S. 482 inherent power be invoked

Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (1960), the High Court stated that when an accused seeks to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, claiming that the proceedings are manifestly frivolous, vexatious, or driven by an “ulterior motive of seeking revenge,” the court has a duty to examine the FIR with “extra care and scrutiny.”

The High Court thereafter said, “We are saying so for the simple reason that if the wife on account of matrimonial disputes decides to harass her husband and his family members then the first thing, she would ensure is to see that proper allegations are levelled in the First Information Report. Many times the services of professionals are availed for the same and once the complaint is drafted by a legal mind, it would be very difficult thereafter to weed out any loopholes or other deficiencies in the same. However, that does not mean that the Court should shut its eyes and raise its hands in helplessness, saying that whether true or false, there are allegations in the First Information Report and the chargesheet papers disclose the commission of a cognizable offence”.

The court also questioned why the investigating agency didn’t file a chargesheet against the other accused if the allegations in the FIR were valid. It noted that the accusations were not just against the husband but also his parents, brother, and sister. The High Court said that if the police chose not to file a chargesheet against the others, it indicates that even the investigators believed the FIR was simply an emotional response to a marital dispute.

Hypersensitive approach would be disastrous for the marriage

The court emphasized that when assessing disputes, it’s crucial to consider what qualifies as cruelty in each specific case. This assessment should take into account the physical and mental conditions of the parties involved, as well as their character and social status.

“A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned,” the Court highlighted.

The Court expressed that instead of handling the issue delicately, initiating criminal proceedings would only bring about hatred between the parties. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family towards the wife, with varying degrees of severity, it said.

Children often main sufferers

It further said that often in matrimonial disputes, children are the main sufferers. It further added, “The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children“.

Police machinery to be used only in genuine cruelty cases

However, it cautioned that the police machinery should be used as a last resort and only in genuine cases of cruelty and harassment. The police should not be used to hold the husband at ransom, allowing the wife to exploit the situation at the instigation of her parents, relatives, or friends. Not every instance of annoyance or trivial irritation between spouses constitutes cruelty, and Section 498A of the IPC should not be applied mechanically in every case where a wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment.

While concluding the Justice Joshi observed that after examining the facts in its entirety the FIR is “nothing but an sheer abuse of the process of law and if the same is allowed to be continued, in that invent, it would be nothing short of abuse of process of law and travesty of justice” .

Finding it a fit case to invoke the court’s inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, the high court allowed the husband and the relatives’ plea and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising out of it.

Case Title: X and Others. Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.