Nowadays 'Package Of 5 Cases' Launched Against Husband And His Family: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voices Concern Over Misuse Of S.498A IPC

The Madhya Pradesh High Court while taking a noteworthy stance on the misuse of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) observed that this section is increasingly being misused to settle matrimonial disputes, often resulting in the registration of a "package of five cases" against the husband and his family members.Justice Vivek Rusia observed, “Nowadays the very purpose of the insertion of Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 with the object to punish the husband or his relatives, has been defined. In most of the cases, this section is being misused as observed by several High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar : [(2014) 8 SCC 273] has observed that the relatives are unnecessarily being made accused under section 498-A of the I.P.C.”“The cases are lodged under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 only to settle the matrimonial dispute. Some times the wife lodges the FIR immediately after receipt of the summons from the Family courts. Nowadays there is a package of 5 cases against the husband and family members in family court and the criminal court under I.P.C., the Hindu Marriage Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,” Justice Rusia added.Justice Rusia said that the Courts have experienced that on the general and omnibus allegations the family members and distant relatives are being roped in a case arising out of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860.“Taking guidance from the above-mentioned cases where there is apparent misuse of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 the High Court should exercise the power conferred under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to protect the relatives of the husband in matrimonial dispute in order to do the complete justice and prevent misuse of the process of law,” Justice Rusia emphasised.The Court was dealing with applications filed under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the FIR registered against complainant's in-laws alleging offences under sections 498-A, 323, and 34 IPC.In the factual context of the case, the complaint was lodged in 2018 by Pallavi. She claimed her husband Kartik Mathur expressed dissatisfaction over of her family not meeting their demands during marriage. She was then mistreated by her in-laws and eventually expelled from the house in July 2017, it is alleged. She lodged the FIR in Indore in July, 2018, a year after the incident.The FIR implicated Pallavi's husband, Kartik, her father-in-law Rajan Mathur, her mother-in-law Meera Mathur, and wife of Kartik's brother (Jethani) Nandita Mathur, under sections 498-A, 323, and 34 of the IPC.The applicants filed these applications to seeking quashing of FIR and consequent proceedings. They argued that none of the parties resided in Indore; it was only the venue of the marriage. They highlighted that Pallavi had left the matrimonial house of her own accord and had been residing in Navi Mumbai and later Australia. They also pointed out the delay in filing the FIR. The applicants mentioned ongoing Family Court proceedings initiated by Kartik Mathur in Australia and emphasized their respective roles, including Rajan Mathur's retired Air Force status.The applicants denied the allegation of demanding dowry and presented an alternative narrative. They claimed that Pallavi confessed to having a pre-marital relationship after the wedding and that her subsequent email to Kartik contained no mention of dowry demands.Pallavi opposed the quashing plea and asserted that the allegations in the FIR needed to be proven through evidence and that a mini trial should not be conducted at this stage. She also challenged her husband's ex-parte divorce decree obtained in Australia, stating that it was invalid under the Hindu Marriage Act due to the marriage being solemnized in India.The Court began by noting that aside from Pallavi's oral testimony, there was a lack of supporting evidence on record to substantiate the accusations under Section 498-A IPC.Furthermore, the Court highlighted a one-year delay in filing the FIR without any reasonable explanation. It was pointed out that while the marriage had taken place in Indore, there was no concrete evidence indicating that Pallavi or her father were regular residents there.The Court raised concerns about the FIR being filed in an inappropriate jurisdiction, as the accused individuals were permanent residents of Gurgaon, whereas the FIR was lodged in Indore where the marriage had occurred. The Court clarified that based on the FIR's contents, the alleged incidents of dowry demands and mistreatment took place solely in the matrimonial house in Gurgaon. Consequently, the Court concluded that the FIR at the Mahila Thana Police Station in Indore had been wrongly registered.Regarding the charge under Section 323 of the IPC (voluntarily causing hurt), the Court observed that there was only verbal assertion about an assault and no corresponding Medical Legal Certificate (MLC) had been provided. The...

Nowadays 'Package Of 5 Cases' Launched Against Husband And His Family: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voices Concern Over Misuse Of S.498A IPC

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

Nowadays 'Package Of 5 Cases' Launched Against Husband And His Family: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voices Concern Over Misuse Of S.498A IPC

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers