The Supreme Court of India has reinforced the principle that criminal law should not be used as a tool for harassment in matrimonial disputes, especially after a divorce has been finalized. In a recent ruling, the apex court quashed a criminal case against a husband and his parents, emphasizing that continuing such proceedings after a divorce serves no legitimate purpose and only prolongs bitterness.
The ruling was delivered by a bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan. The court addressed a case where a wife had filed an FIR against her husband and his family under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging cruelty, criminal intimidation, and breach of trust. The couple's marriage, solemnized in March 2018, had broken down within ten months, leading to the filing of several cases, including the aforementioned FIR. A divorce by mutual consent was granted on January 19, 2024, and all pending disputes were settled and withdrawn, with the wife confirming she had no objection to quashing the FIR.
Despite this, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the plea to quash the FIR, citing allegations concerning the victimisation of the child. The Supreme Court, however, overturned this decision, invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice. The court observed that once a marriage has ended and the parties have moved on, continuing criminal prosecution serves no purpose other than to prolong bitterness and burden the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer active.
The Supreme Court has consistently cautioned against the misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes and has emphasized the need to prevent the unnecessary implication of family members. The court has previously stated that it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband's family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses. In line with this principle, the court has, in several instances, quashed criminal proceedings arising out of matrimonial discord after divorce, holding that the continuation of such prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process.
In a similar case, the Supreme Court quashed a dowry harassment case against a father-in-law, citing the end of the matrimonial relationship, lack of evidence, and misuse of the process. The court noted that the FIR was lodged nearly two months after the alleged incident and only after the husband filed for divorce, with no such allegations raised during police counselling sessions. The court observed that once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on, continuing criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose.
The Supreme Court has also emphasized that criminal law should not be used as an instrument of harassment and that judicial scrutiny is essential to guard against misuse. The court has observed that matrimonial disputes are increasingly being converted into criminal cases to settle personal scores and that courts must be vigilant against such misuse of law. The apex court's rulings demonstrate a clear stance against the weaponization of criminal law in matrimonial disputes, advocating for resolution through civil remedies and emphasizing the need for courts to intervene when criminal law is used as a tool of vengeance.
