Supreme Court’s strict comment: Difference with husband does not mean that every relative is guilty, FIR will not be registered without solid evidence.

New Delhi25 May. The Supreme Court, while making a strong comment in a case related to matrimonial dispute, said that a criminal case cannot be initiated against every relative of the husband on the basis of mere general allegations. The top court emphasized that legal action can be considered justified only if the claims are clear and based on facts.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotishwar Singh said that it is most important to protect the rights and dignity of victims of domestic violence. But, at the same time, the courts will also have to ensure that criminal law is not imposed indiscriminately on every member of the family without any concrete witness or evidence.

The bench also said that it has been a common experience of the judiciary that in matrimonial disputes emotions are often very high, relationships are strained and mutual grievances run deep. According to the court, in such circumstances, complaints alleging cruelty and harassment often tend to implicate not only the husband but his entire family. In this, those relatives are also included, who have no active role in the marital dispute.

The bench further said that merely having a family relationship with the husband or not supporting the complainant (wife) in a matrimonial dispute cannot in itself be considered a criminal offence. For this, it is necessary to prove that those relatives had actively participated in acts like cruelty, harassment or illegal demand of dowry.

The bench made it clear that the plight of the complainant woman in a failed marriage cannot be ignored, but at the same time, the criminal law cannot be allowed to be used against every relative of the husband on the basis of mere general and airy allegations without any solid basis.

The Supreme Court bench said that it is also fully aware of the reality that there are genuine cases of cruelty and domestic violence in marital homes. These matters often remain hidden from the eyes of society. The bench said, ‘In cases of mental, verbal, financial or physical abuse occurring within the domestic sphere, there is not always readily available evidence or independent witnesses. Absence of such evidence at the initial stage cannot in itself be a ground for disbelieving the statement of the victim woman.

The Supreme Court made these comments while canceling an FIR registered in Madhya Pradesh in the year 2023. The FIR was lodged against four family members of a man, who was embroiled in a matrimonial dispute, on charges including provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The country’s highest court also quashed the proceedings initiated by the complainant against these four relatives under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

The bench also observed that during the hearing in the Supreme Court, a family court had granted a divorce decree between the husband and the complainant wife, breaking their marriage. However, the bench made it clear that the concerned trial court will continue the case proceedings against the remaining accused in the case.

The Supreme Court said that its decision will not become an obstacle for the trial court. If during the hearing, such evidence comes before the court which in its view is sufficient to prosecute the case against these four relatives, then the trial court can use its power under Section 319 CrPC and summon them again.