"Family Feud" Need Not Span Generations, Dispute Between Members Of Same Generation Also Qualifies: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that a “family feud” need not be a dispute continuing across generations and that a prior dispute between family members of the same generation can amount to a family feud. The Court observed that where the facts of a case attract different categories under the same Guidelines, the category more beneficial to the convict must be applied.
A division bench of Justice Vaishali Patil-Jadhav and Justice Sandipkumar C. More was hearing a petition filed by a convict challenging the State's decision placing him under Category 2(c) of the Government Resolution dated March 15, 2010, which prescribed 26 years of imprisonment including remission for considering premature release, instead of Category 3(b), which prescribed 22 years of imprisonment for release.
The Petitioner submitted that the crime arose out of a family feud and did not involve “exceptional violence”. Hence, the petitioner ought to have been placed under category 3(b) of the Guidelines of 2010, and not under category 2(c).
Examining the meaning of “feud” in various dictionaries, the Court noted that the definitions collectively contemplated a “family feud” as a long-standing dispute arising out of family relationships. It observed:
“The expression “family” has a broad meaning. It includes not just blood relatives but also relatives by affinity and those connected by law, extending up to various generations. Thus, a feud can arise even within the extended family.”
The Court also clarified the scope of the term family feud, noting that even a dispute between family members of the same generation can be a family feud.
“A family feud does not necessarily mean a dispute that has been going on for generations. When a prior dispute between family members of the same generation becomes the reason for a subsequent offence, the resulting conflict certainly amounts to a family feud,” the Court remarked.
The Court then examined the facts and noted that the Petitioner and his son had developed a grudge against the complainant and her daughter as they had been witnesses in a murder case against the Petitioner and his son.
Considering the facts and the meaning of “family feud”, the Court held that the Petitioner's case fell under Category 3(b), and not in 2(c). Referring to various precedents on the extension of the benefit of a liberal policy to a convict, the Court further observed:
“… where the facts of the case attract multiple categories under the very same Guidelines, the category which is more beneficial to the convict must be considered and shall be made applicable to him.”
Applying the aforesaid reasoning, the Court held that category 3(b) of the Guidelines of 2010 would be more beneficial to the petitioner as it requires a total imprisonment of 22 years to be undergone including remission for premature release as against 26 years under category 2(c).
The Court accordingly allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to place the Petitioner under Category 3(b) of the 2010 Guidelines.
Case Title: Devidas v. State of Maharashtra [Criminal Writ Petition No. 364 of 2026]