Whether Marital Discord Can Be Dragged Into POSH Proceedings? Allahabad High Court To Examine; Grants Relief To Husband

The Allahabad High Court is set to examine whether proceedings arising essentially from a dispute between a married couple working in the same office can be brought within the ambit of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), observing that the legislation is "intended for a different purpose".

A bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia made the observation while hearing a petition filed by a man challenging a fact-finding report and charge-sheet issued against him following a complaint by his wife under the POSH Act.

The Court has also stayed the disciplinary proceedings against him until further orders.

Case in brief

The petitioner/Husband and respondent no. 7/Wife were married and working in the same office. According to the order, they initially stayed together as husband and wife.

However, friction developed between them during a visit to Hemkund Sahib, following which the woman lodged a complaint under the POSH Act.

In her complaint, she alleged that on October 9, 2024, the petitioner, who was her colleague, used foul language and made derogatory remarks against her in the office in front of others. The complaint, however, did not disclose their marital status.

The Court also noted that the woman had simultaneously lodged an FIR dated December 28, 2024, alleging caste-related abuse, dowry demand, physical abuse and verbal abuse. The FIR stated that the couple had married on March 11, 2023.

POSH Committee's remarks

The POSH Committee considered the evidence and recorded that the couple had marital discord before the October 9, 2024, incident and that their marriage had become known to their colleagues.

It further stated that the management could have "suo moto taken action to post them in different offices". It added that a marital dispute should not result in disrespectful conduct at the workplace.

"Marital dispute makes one person tensed/frustrated with his/her personal life but no one gets the right to disrespect each other at workplace. One must understand that the dignity/decorum of the workplace needs to be maintained. If a female employee is someone's wife at the same premises does not give him right to treat his wife the same way as he does in his home (whether love or hate)", the Committee recorded in its report.

The Committee also found that the petitioner's continuous muttering and objectionable remarks fell within Section 2(n)(v) of the POSH Act. It also recorded that the petitioner had taken the complainant's wallet, assuming that, being his wife, he had the right to search her bag without her consent.

Consequently, the Committee recommended proceedings against the petitioner-Husband under the applicable Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules.

It also recommended action against both the husband and wife for not disclosing their marital status for more than a year, which it treated as a violation of the applicable rules.

The Husband challenged the proceedings before the High Court, arguing that the marital discord had been “dragged” into the POSH Act and that the complaint and subsequent proceedings amounted to misuse of the POSH Act and the BNS provisions to “settle scores” with him.

He contended that even a prima facie case could not be made out against him.

The respondents, however, argued that the proceedings were justified in view of the petitioner's conduct in the office and the findings recorded by the inquiry committee.

The wife's counsel submitted that although the marital status had not been disclosed in the POSH complaint, this would have “no ill effect” on the proceedings under the POSH Act.

High Court's observations

After considering the submissions, the High Court observed that the matter raised a question requiring consideration:

"…prima facie, the matter requires consideration as to whether proceedings initiated and emanating essentially from marital discord can be dragged into invoking the provisions of the POSH Act, which is intended for a different purpose".

Therefore, the Court sought a counter-affidavit from the respondents within 4 weeks, followed by a rejoinder within 2 weeks.

Pending further orders, the Court directed that disciplinary proceedings in furtherance of charge sheet against the Husband-petitioner shall remain stayed.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Dubey

Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Ashwani Kumar Singh, Jitendra Narain Mishra, Maneesh Pandey