Advocates Must Advise Their Clients Against Filing Frivolous Cases In Matrimonial Disputes : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 29) strongly deprecated the growing trend of filing false and vexatious criminal cases in matrimonial disputes, observing that courts as well as members of the Bar must actively discourage the misuse of criminal law to settle personal scores between estranged spouses.

“Vexatious litigation in the realm of matrimonial disputes based on frivolous and false allegations should be discouraged by the courts and the members of the bar. Advocates ought to advise their clients against the initiation of frivolous criminal proceedings against their spouses rather than encouraging them to do so.”, the Court observed.

A Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while quashing more than 10 criminal cases, including allegations under the POCSO Act and rape provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), against a husband and his family members.

The Court reiterated the observation made in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343, where the Court observed:

“…the learned members of Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.”

Background

The dispute arose out of a long-standing matrimonial conflict between the complainant-wife and her husband's family. The parties had been married in 2008, and two children were born from the marriage. In 2011, the complainant left the matrimonial home while the children continued to remain with the husband's family.

Over the years, more than ten criminal and civil proceedings were initiated between the parties, including cases under Section 498A IPC, the Domestic Violence Act, attempt to murder allegations, and divorce proceedings.

The impugned complaint, filed in 2024, alleged that the husband had raped his minor daughter and that the uncle had also sexually assaulted her, while other family members physically abused and intimidated the child.

Decision

Setting aside the Allahabad High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna found the allegations to be vague, unsupported by medical evidence, and part of a larger pattern of retaliatory litigation.

The Court particularly noted that the statements of the complainant and the prosecutrix were almost identical “word by word,” indicating possible tutoring.

“There has been no alteration, addition or subtraction from either of the three statements making each of them virtually identical to one another. This is not a case of there being consistency in all the statements but a case of verbatim reproduction of statements almost parrot-like, as a result of tutoring by the complainant and possibly her family,” the Bench observed.

Quashing the proceedings, the Court held that allowing criminal prosecution to continue on the basis of general and sweeping allegations would amount to abuse of process of law.

“if a person is made an accused and forced to face a criminal trial on general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it would tantamount to an abuse of the process of law and court. Hence, legal practitioners who tender advice in such cases must restrain parties from filing such false/frivolous complaints when requested to do so. Further, lawyers/advocates must also not advise filing of criminal complaints which are false/concocted so as to keep the opposite parties under a tight leash so that they could come forward for a settlement on the terms dictated by their parties or else, to face a criminal prosecution which can prolong for years.”, the court observed.

Further, the Court noted that filing of vexatious litigations on vague and general allegations leads to docket explosion of cases before the Courts.

“When such is the trend, on the other side, efforts are made to seek anticipatory bail by persons apprehending arrest owing to a false/frivolous complaint being lodged which sometimes reach the portals of this Court after being unsuccessful at the level of the trial court and High Court. Also, steps are taken for seeking quashing of such false/frivolous complaints before the High Court which has its own saga of uncertainties causing undue pressure, harassment, stress and tension on the so-called accused. The consequence of all this is docket explosion and burden on Courts resulting in genuine complaints and cases not being given due time and attention that they need.”, the court observed.

At the same time, the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the peculiar facts of the present case and should not undermine genuine complaints of sexual abuse or matrimonial cruelty.

“We are conscious of the fact that there are many instances where women are gravely affected by matrimonial disputes and violence that they have to endure at the hands of the spouse and in-laws... Such cases deserve our utmost attention and judicial scrutiny.”

The Court ultimately quashed the complaint, the cognizance order, and the summoning order against all the accused family members.

The appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: ISHWAR CHAND SHARMA & OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 566

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Dr. L.S. Chaudhary, Adv. Dr. Ajay Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Bharat Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Vinita, Adv. Ms. Monika Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Pratima Vishwakarma, Adv. Ms. Anjale Patel, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR

For Respondent(s) Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Ashwina Lakra, Adv. Mr. Amit Pai, Adv. Mr. Nitesh Ranjan, AOR Ms. Avantika Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Tathagat Dutta, Adv. Mr. Parijat Chandan, Adv. Mr. Neelaksh, Adv.