High Court Ruling: 50K Fine Imposed on Wife in Family Dispute

Introduction

Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed a fantastic decision of wherein it has taken a very balanced stand. The High Court took a stern step against the woman litigant for misusing the process of law to harass her husband. In this case, the Court pointed out that Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was introduced to the statue with an aim to curb menace of dowry however, it has been mis utilized by women to harass their husbands.

X v. Y: Case Analysis

Facts of the case

The wife lodged an FIR against the husband under Section 498A of the IPC that deals with “husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty”, Section 323 of the IPC related to “punishment for voluntarily causing hurt” and Section 406 “criminal breach of trust”.

‘X’, the accused (husband) in 2022 approached the High Court for quashing of the FIR based on settlement between the parties. The High Court, in March 2024, had directed the parties to get the statements recorded regarding the compromise between ‘X’ the husband and ‘Y’ the wife before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

The Magistrate in its report to the High Court mentioned that during recording of the statement pertaining to compromise, the husband came for recording the same, however, the wife did not appear.

The Counsel for ‘X’, stated that ‘Y’ did not appear purposefully before the Magistrate to harass ‘X’.

Observation of the High Court

Based on the above facts, the High Court made a remarkable observation on the conduct of ‘Y’. The Court came down heavily on the woman’s attitude of not turning up for recording of the statement and stated that the Court cannot avoid “vexatious and virulent attempts” of the woman to misuse and exploit the process of law.

The Court observed that the wife’s conduct was inexplicable and the same could not be considered as bona fide. It added that any attempt by any of the parties to misuse the law or the Courts ought to be detested. The parties having bitterness for each other cannot use State machinery or the Court to take revenge from the spouse. Further, the Court noted that the wife misused the process of law to harass her husband by not coming for recording of the statement before the Magistrate.

The High Court stressed that the husband had already paid Rs. 22 Lakhs for the settlement to his former wife. The said amount was paid by him towards maintenance and permanent alimony. That the Family Court had already passed a mutual consent divorce decree. Hence, it is evident from the attitude of the woman that her purpose was to misuse the process of law to harass her husband.

Decision of the High Court

The High Court, based on the above findings, imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on ‘Y’ the wife for not turning up to record her statement before the Magistrate with regard to the settlement of the matrimonial dispute.

The Court quashed the FIR against the husband and concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the man would amount to sheer abuse of the process of law. That if the proceedings would not be quashed then it would lead to unnecessary harassment to the husband.

It was stressed by the Court that Section 498A of the IPC was introduced to the statute with an object to curb the evil of dowry, and the woman file complaints also under Section 406 of IPC to increase gravity of punishment and harass the husband and his family members.

The order stated that the Courts dealing with the criminal proceedings initiated out of matrimonial dispute, must adopt a prudent and cautious approach in dealing with the cases. It cannot apply any set formula while deciding such cases and a pragmatic approach may not be needed.

There should be a thorough analysis of the facts and circumstance before concluding whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed or not under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The statutory provision given inherent powers to the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused on perusal of the facts, evidence on record. It stressed that if the wife has already “reaped the benefits of compromise” from her husband, then the FIR should be quashed.

However, the wife has liberty to contest that compromise between the parties was due to coercion and undue influence, she needs to corroborate her contention with requisite material and evidence. Further, on raising such a plea the wife needs to return the financial benefit that she might have received during the settlement.

Conclusion

The High Court has brilliantly passed the instant decision wherein it has analysed several parameters. It is not a one-sided biased decision of the Court rather it is a very balanced decision with application of judicial mind. It was correctly observed by the Court that wife was misusing the process of law to harass her husband. She had already taken one-time mutually settled amount, the decree of mutual divorce was already passed by the Family Court, the parties had entered a settlement and when she was directed to record the statement before the Magistrate, she failed to appear for the same. Considering the relevant facts, the High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the wife. It also quashed the criminal proceedings against the husband.

This decision sets a benchmark for those who tries to exploit the procedure of law to take revenge or harassment of another party. The Court has sternly concluded that no lenient view must be taken against a woman litigant if her attitude is not bona fide. It will curb such wrong practices of litigants to exploit state machinery and law for their own benefit or revenge.