'No Useful Purpose Would Be Served': Orissa High Court Quashes Cruelty & Dowry Case Against Husband Citing Mutual Divorce

The Orissa High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a husband, accused of demanding dowry and meting out cruelty against his wife, on the basis of divorce of the couple on mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ['the 1955 Act'].A Single Bench of Justice Savitri Ratho was of the opinion that since the marriage has been dissolved with the consent of both the spouses, no “useful purpose” would be served in keeping the criminal case alive anymore. In the words of the Judge–“On a careful examination of the background facts, keeping in mind the decisions of the Supreme Court and as the marriage between the Petitioner No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on mutual consent under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, I am of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served to keep G.R. Case No. 626 of 2012 in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Puri pending any further.”The Petitioner No. 1 [hereinafter 'the petitioner'] married the Opposite Party No. 2 [hereinafter 'the OP'] as per Hindu rites and customs on 16.02.2005. It was alleged by the OP that the petitioner demanded Rs. 5,00,000/- dowry, but she could only arrange Rs. 2,00,000/-. Therefore, the petitioner along with his family members allegedly threatened to kill by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene. Subsequently, the OP filed an FIR against the petitioners under Sections 498-A/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which was pending in the files of the SDJM, Puri. However, in the meanwhile, the petitioners filed this application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash the pending criminal case.It was vehemently submitted on their behalf that the allegations of dowry are false and a concocted case has been foisted upon them due to matrimonial incompatibility. Notwithstanding the FIR, it was pointed out, both the parties had applied for divorce on the basis of mutual consent as per Section 13-B of the 1955 Act. The Family Court, Puri purportedly granted divorce to the parties by an order dated 27.06.2016. Interestingly, the counsel for the OP also submitted that since the marriage has already been dissolved on the basis of mutual consent, she “may not” be interested in pursuing the criminal case against the petitioners any further.Justice Ratho relied upon Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 375 and Sri Rangappa Javoor v. State of Karnataka, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 74 wherein the Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that matrimonial matters are amicably resolved, thereby bringing the agony, affliction, and torment to an end. It had in the same breath cautioned the courts to enquire and ensure that the settlement between the parties is achieved without pressure, force, coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence, and that the consent is “indeed sought by free will and choice, and the autonomy of the parties is not compromised”.Quoting the order of the Family Court, the Bench opined that it has become apparent that the parties have settled their difference and agreed to put an end to their marriage by mutual consent. As ten years have elapsed in the meantime, it was of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the criminal case pending and alive. Thus, it quashed the impending prosecution.Case Title: DKM v. SOOCase No: CRLMC No. 4110 of 2015Date of Judgment: February 03, 2026Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. D.K. Swain, AdvocateCounsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. Raj Bhusan Dash, Addl. Standing CounselCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 24Click Here To Read/Download Order

'No Useful Purpose Would Be Served': Orissa High Court Quashes Cruelty & Dowry Case Against Husband Citing Mutual Divorce

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags