Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
Child In Custody Of Husband Post Matrimonial Disputes Can’t Be Equated With Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Delhi High Court
|The Delhi High Court said that it is a case where there was an adjustment issue between the wife and her husband, which has been given a “colour of dowry harassment”.
The Delhi High Court held that the child in custody of the husband after matrimonial disputes cannot be equated with cruelty or harassment under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Court held thus in a batch of two Writ Petitions filed by the in-laws of the Complainant (wife), seeking to quash the chargesheet filed against them under Section 498A, 323, 504, and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “The matrimonial differences led to the separation and the custody of the child was with the husband and the Petitioners. However, merely because the child was in the custody of the husband after disputes interse arose, cannot be equated with cruelty or harassment as envisaged under Section 498A IPC. The Complainant has already sought her legal right to access to the child by Court intervention.”
The Bench said that it is case where there was an adjustment issue between the wife and her husband, which has been given a “colour of dowry harassment”.
Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid represented the Petitioners while ASC Rahul Tyagi represented the Respondents.
Case Background
The Petitioners had a son aged 38 years who was an Officer in the Merchant Navy for the last 16 years. In 2007, he got married to the Complainant-Respondent as per Hindu customs and rites. Allegedly, the behaviour of the Complainant (wife) was found to be very strange after coming from the honeymoon. It was alleged that she used to keep herself locked in the house and did not even try to communicate with her in-laws. The Petitioners supported her in her interest in books and also got her a job as a school teacher. Suddenly, she allegedly told the Petitioners about leaving her job and when they asked about the reason, she replied that the school staff was conspiring against her and putting drugs in her tea. The Petitioners felt that it was something more in the nature of a mental disorder.
In 2008, one son was born to her and her husband (Petitioners’ son). The Petitioners claimed that her behaviour was getting bad to worse day by day and she was becoming aggressive and uncontrollable even against the child. As per the doctors, she was not normal and was in dire need of treatment. However, she was allegedly not serious about her treatment and kept neglecting her medicines. In 2015, tired by the aggression and constant threats of filing complaints and of committing suicide, the husband filed a Petition for divorce under Section 13(1) (iii) and 1(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), which also included a prayer for custody of the child in the Family Court. In retaliation, the wife and her parents filed a complaint with Women’s Police Station against her husband and Petitioners, including their married daughter. Hence, the Petitioners were before the High Court, seeking quashing of chargesheet against them.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… the essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC are not made out from the Complaint made by Respondent No.2.The entire Complaint and the evidence collected during the investigations in the present matter, even if admitted in toto, would not be enough to prove an offence under Section 498A IPC. As already noted above, the onerous duty lies on the Court on one hand, to ensure that the true victims get justice and on the other hand, to ensure that Section 498A IPC, a salutary endeavour of legislation to address the menace of harassment of women by the husband and the in-Laws; must not be permitted to be misused and abused in order to ensure the credibility and faith in the justice delivery system.”
The Court remarked that it is more of a case of misuse of the provisions of Section 498A IPC by the Complainant and has been filed as a counter blast to the Divorce Petition filed by the husband in 2015.
“Clearly, no Complaint whatsoever got filed till the filing of the Divorce Petition and it is only thereafter, that the Respondent No.2 made a Complaint with the vague allegations”, it added.
Moreover, the Court said that there is not an iota of even a prima facie case of cruelty or of harassment of the Complainant by the Petitioners/parents-in-law.
“Though the Chargesheet has been filed in this Case but as noted above, but that in itself cannot be a ground to deny the quashing and to refer the parties to try their luck before the learned Trial Court. Chargesheet it liable to be quashed as observed in thecase of Bhajan Lal, (supra)”, it further observed.
The Court, therefore, concluded that it is a fit case for quashing of the chargesheet against the Petitioners in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC.
“… while exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the courts must be extremely cautious and should refrain from interfering unless there is palpable illegality or a gross abuse of process”, it also emphasised.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the case against the Petitioners.
Cause Title- ABC & Anr. v. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5666)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid, Advocates Naghma Imtiaz, Ahmed Zargham, Saif Naseem, Maria Mansuri, and Sidra Khan.
Respondents: ASC Rahul Tyagi, Advocates Sumant De, and Rohit Khurana.