“Merely because the provision (Section 498-A) is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendetta or unleash harassment”, quoted the Supreme Court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sharma (MANU/SC/0418/2005). The same principle was reaffirmed in the criminal writ petition filed by one Rakesh Prabhakar Meshram (Rakesh Prabhakar Meshram and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors) for which former bureaucrat, activist and advocate Abha Singh along with advocate Isha Rakesh Singh appeared as counsels for the petitioner through Aditya Pratap Law Offices (MANU/MH/3695/2024). This was a case in which Reiterated how protective laws cannot be misused.
The petitioner in this case was married to respondent no.2 (the complainant wife). They entered the wedlock on 25th December 2007 and within 2 years of doing so, on the complainant’s insistence, they separated from the joint family and began residing in a separate household. Despite residing separately, their marriage proved to be incompatible and was fraught with differences. In the view of this discord, the petitioner and the respondent decided to opt for a divorce by mutual consent and a petition for the same was filed before the Family Court in Bandra on 13th May 2014. This petition for divorce was filed, based on consent terms which clearly stated that the Petitioner (husband) would return the articles including jewellery comprising her streedhan and other belongings as per an annexed list, back to the respondent. The consent terms also stated that the petitioner (husband) would pay Rupees 1 lakh to the respondent (complainant wife) and no further matrimonial claims and exchanges would be pending between both the parties, and they agreed to not file any civil or criminal cases against each other hereafter or in future. Pursuant thereto, the marriage was dissolved by the Family Court in Bandra on 23rd June 2014.
What came in as a shock is that even after having signed the consent terms, the respondent (complainant wife) proceeded to register an FIR under Section 498- A, 406, 404, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner and his family including his parents, his sisters and their spouses on 5th February 2015, nine months after filing the consent terms for obtaining divorce. Moreover, while registering the FIR, the respondent (complainant wife) somehow failed to touch upon the part where consent terms were filed. In the FIR, she alleged that the petitioners demanded that she bring money from her parents for purchasing a flat, allegations also involved restrictions on her food intake, depriving her of her own salary, taking away her mangalsutra, gold ornaments and other jewellery, assault on her & other vague and generic things.
Advocate Abha Singh argued before the hon’ble court, drawing attention on the contents of the FIR and the Consent Terms which form the basis of the divorce granted to petitioner and the respondent. She asserted how the FIR was a ‘complete abuse of the process of law, designed to intimidate and harass the Petitioners by endangering their lives, liberty and respect in society’. The delay in filing the FIR, it came across as a planned and calculated move. Dragging not only the petitioner but his parents, sisters and even their disengaged spouses into the FIR was a mischievous act done solely for the purpose of causing undue harassment to them.
The Bombay High Court observed that when the parties have already come to a consensus and obtained a divorce based on mutual consent, the criminal complaint filed thereafter, especially with the vague allegations against the husband’s immediate and extended family would not be allowed to stand. The Court also took note of the fact that the complainant wife had already accepted back her belongings and the monetary settlement of Rupees 1 lakh thus the allegations of cruelty and misappropriation of Streedhan would not be sustainable. Consequently, the pressure tactic and harassment tool, disguised as an FIR, was rightly quashed by the Court on 20th June 2024.
Such malicious false allegations and complaints dilute the sufferings of the genuine victims and perish the thought, but should a judgment unknowingly be delivered in favour of such false complaints, it would drive a nail in the coffin of the genuine victims. The crucial time of the already overburdened judiciary is also wasted in the process of hearing such matters built on lies and malice. These protective provisions serve the true purpose only when applied sincerely because when they are taken undue advantage of, justice itself stands betrayed.
