Nowadays 'Package Of 5 Cases' Launched Against Husband And His Family: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voices Concern Over Misuse Of S.498A IPC

Justice Vivek Rusia observed, “Nowadays the very purpose of the insertion of Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 with the object to punish the husband or his relatives, has been defined. In most of the cases, this section is being misused as observed by several High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar : [(2014) 8 SCC 273] has observed that the relatives are unnecessarily being made accused under section 498-A of the I.P.C.”

“The cases are lodged under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 only to settle the matrimonial dispute. Some times the wife lodges the FIR immediately after receipt of the summons from the Family courts. Nowadays there is a package of 5 cases against the husband and family members in family court and the criminal court under I.P.C., the Hindu Marriage Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,” Justice Rusia added.

Justice Rusia said that the Courts have experienced that on the general and omnibus allegations the family members and distant relatives are being roped in a case arising out of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.

“Taking guidance from the above-mentioned cases where there is apparent misuse of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 the High Court should exercise the power conferred under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to protect the relatives of the husband in matrimonial dispute in order to do the complete justice and prevent misuse of the process of law,” Justice Rusia emphasised.

The Court was dealing with applications filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the FIR registered against complainant's in-laws alleging offences under sections 498-A, 323, and 34 IPC.

In the factual context of the case, the complaint was lodged in 2018 by Pallavi. She claimed her husband Kartik Mathur expressed dissatisfaction over of her family not meeting their demands during marriage. She was then mistreated by her in-laws and eventually expelled from the house in July 2017, it is alleged. She lodged the FIR in Indore in July, 2018, a year after the incident.

The FIR implicated Pallavi's husband, Kartik, her father-in-law Rajan Mathur, her mother-in-law Meera Mathur, and wife of Kartik's brother (Jethani) Nandita Mathur, under sections 498-A, 323, and 34 of the IPC.

The applicants filed these applications to seeking quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings. They argued that none of the parties resided in Indore; it was only the venue of the marriage. They highlighted that Pallavi had left the matrimonial house of her own accord and had been residing in Navi Mumbai and later Australia. They also pointed out the delay in filing the FIR. The applicants mentioned ongoing Family Court proceedings initiated by Kartik Mathur in Australia and emphasized their respective roles, including Rajan Mathur's retired Air Force status.

The applicants denied the allegation of demanding dowry and presented an alternative narrative. They claimed that Pallavi confessed to having a pre-marital relationship after the wedding and that her subsequent email to Kartik contained no mention of dowry demands.

Pallavi opposed the quashing plea and asserted that the allegations in the FIR needed to be proven through evidence and that a mini trial should not be conducted at this stage. She also challenged her husband's ex-parte divorce decree obtained in Australia, stating that it was invalid under the Hindu Marriage Act due to the marriage being solemnized in India.

The Court began by noting that aside from Pallavi's oral testimony, there was a lack of supporting evidence on record to substantiate the accusations under Section 498-A IPC.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted a one-year delay in filing the FIR without any reasonable explanation. It was pointed out that while the marriage had taken place in Indore, there was no concrete evidence indicating that Pallavi or her father were regular residents there.

The Court raised concerns about the FIR being filed in an inappropriate jurisdiction, as the accused individuals were permanent residents of Gurgaon, whereas the FIR was lodged in Indore where the marriage had occurred. The Court clarified that based on the FIR's contents, the alleged incidents of dowry demands and mistreatment took place solely in the matrimonial house in Gurgaon. Consequently, the Court concluded that the FIR at the Mahila Thana Police Station in Indore had been wrongly registered.

Regarding the charge under Section 323 of the IPC (voluntarily causing hurt), the Court observed that there was only verbal assertion about an assault and no corresponding Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) had been provided. The unexplained one-year delay in filing the FIR further weakened the case. The Court noted that the general nature of the accusations, such as the alleged demand of Rs. 10 Lakhs and a car from the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and 'Jethani', made them less convincing.

The Court observed, “At present, the husband and wife both have settled in Australia. The parents of the husband are being harassed by way of the criminal case in India. Applicant No.1 Rajan Mathur is aged about 67 years and his wife is also a senior citizen. General allegations have been levelled against 'Jethani' hence she has unnecessarily been dragged in the FIR.”

“As per the contents of the FIR, the husband of respondent No.2 was not even in India at the time of so-called omission of crime. Respondent No.2 has given the Power of Attorney to her father to contest the case against these applicants. This is now a case of reverse cruelty upon them. There is no specific allegation that when her husband left India for Australia there was any demand for dowry, etc,” the Court added.

The Court emphasized the increasing commonality of situations where couples live and work abroad while their parents endure legal or matrimonial disputes in India.

Considering these factors, the Court decided to allow the applications and quash the FIRs, the associated charge sheet, and the entire proceedings in the criminal case.

Case Title: Rajan v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Case No.: Misc. Criminal Case No. 35596 Of 2018

Click Here To Read/Download Judgement