Unscrupulous Litigation Against Husband & Family Even After Settlement & Mutual Divorce: MP High Court Imposes Rs 1 Lakh Cost On Wife

Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed Rs 1 Lakh cost on a litigant wife for misusing the process of court by continuing prosecution against the husband and his family even after reaching a settlement and obtaining a decree of divorce by mutual consent.

The single judge bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar opined that the cost imposed would serve as a warning for 'unscrupulous litigants' wasting the valuable time of the courts instead of serious litigation. The court also took note of the fact that the respondent-wife had already received Rs 50 lakhs as a part of the settlement before obtaining a divorce. Therefore, she should deposit the cost to the bank account of the petitioner-husband within four weeks, the court instructed.

Apart from the non-compoundable offence of causing miscarriage under Section 313 IPC, the petitioners were also arraigned for Sections 498A, 323, 506, 34, and 325 of IPC. According to the bench sitting at Indore, even for proving the latter set of offences, mere 'omnibus allegations' were made by the wife that weren't adequate.

“…and further considering the fact a decree of divorce by mutual consent has already been passed between the parties, the respondent no.2 was bound to withdraw the same but she deliberately, with ulterior motives refused to withdraw even that part of the charge-sheet. Thus, the conduct of the respondent no.2… despite entering into a compromise with the petitioner no.1, and accepting Rs.50 Lakhs in lieu thereof, clearly amounts to misuse of the process of the court”, the court observed.

The petitioners had filed two separate petitions: one to quash the FIR registered at Vijayanagar Police station, and a criminal revision petition since the charges had already been framed by the trial court in pursuance of the criminal proceedings initiated. While allowing both petitions, the court also referred to judgments where unscrupulous litigations and the continuation of criminal proceedings against the husband even after reaching a compromise were frowned upon by the apex court as a misuse of the court's time. Some of these case laws were Mohd. Shamim & Ors v. Nahid Begum & Anr., AIR 2005 SC 757 and Abhishek v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 731.

Regarding the allegation levelled against the husband and his octogenarian parents under Section 313 IPC, the court observed that it's clear from the records about the timeline of termination of pregnancy. It was done in 2009 through a legal procedure at a reputed hospital, the court further added. In such circumstances, the court found it inconceivable that a miscarriage had occurred without the consent of the wife.

Since the certificate of pregnancy's termination from the hospital was proper and no further evidence was brought on record to make out the offence under Section 313 IPC, the court disregarded the wife's argument that the offence under Section 313 IPC is non-compoundable and cannot be quashed forthwith.

“…It is also found that if the prosecution was of the opinion that the aforesaid procedure of medical termination of pregnancy was performed without the consent of the respondent No.2, in that case the Hospital was equally liable for that, but the Hospital is not an accused… even if the documents…are accepted to be true, the charge under Section 313 of IPC is not at all made out”, the single judge bench underscored by raising suspicions about the 'malafide intentions' harboured by the wife to harass the husband and his family.

According to a decree of divorce by mutual consent, obtained on 02.02.2023, pursuant to an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife had already received Rs 50 lakhs. There was also a specific undertaking in the agreement, which is a part of the decree, to drop the criminal proceedings against the husband.

Advocate Trilok Chand Jain appeared for the petitioners. Advocate Nisha Jaiswal represented the state and Advocate Rishiraj Trivedi appeared for respondent no.2- wife.

Case Title: Anshul & Ors. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Connected Matter

Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 6308 of 2022 & Criminal Revision No. 3272 of 2022

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 39

Click Here To Read/ Download Order