Matrimonial news: Warning against the routine implication of entire families in matrimonial disputes, the Madras High Court has ruled that relatives cannot be forced to undergo a criminal trial just because they are related to the husband, even as it refused to spare the husband from prosecution.

The court quashed a cruelty case against seven relatives of the husband.

Justice L Victoria Gowri was hearing a petition filed by the estranged husband and seven of his family members seeking to quash criminal proceedings pending before a trial court challenging a chargesheet filed in a case registered by the All Women Police Station, Bodinayakanur, on a complaint lodged by the estranged wife.

“Criminal law cannot be set in motion against every relative of the husband merely because matrimonial discord exists between the spouses…The criminal process must remain a shield for the genuinely aggrieved and not become a sword for collateral vengeance. Matrimonial discord, when translated into criminal prosecution, must be examined with judicial sensitivity,” the court said on June 1.

According to the records, the man married the complainant on June 29, 2015. The couple has a son who was born on July 30, 2016.

The wife alleged that she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and that his relatives encouraged and supported his conduct.

She also accused him of developing an illicit relationship with another woman.

The complaint stated that on November 8, 2022, the husband assaulted her, abused her and forcibly took away her mobile phone.

She further alleged that he assaulted her again on November 11, 2022, demanding the password to the device.

The complaint was eventually lodged on January 30, 2023, leading to the registration of a criminal case. Following the investigation, police filed a final report on December 22, 2023.

The husband was charged under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or his relatives), 294(b) (uttering obscene words in or near a public place), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation with threat to cause death or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code, while his relatives were charged under Section 498-A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) IPC.

The petitioners argued that the complaint stemmed from ordinary marital discord and that the husband‘s relatives had been unnecessarily implicated.

They submitted that the couple had begun living separately within days of their marriage, first in Tiruppur and later in police quarters at Bodinayakanur, where the husband worked as a police constable.

According to them, the relatives neither lived with the couple nor played any role in their domestic disputes.

The petitioners also pointed to the nearly 80-day delay in lodging the complaint and argued that there was no medical evidence supporting the allegations of assault.

After examining the complaint, chargesheet and investigation records, the high court found that the allegations against the husband stood on a different footing from those levelled against the other accused.

Justice Gowri noted that the complaint referred to specific incidents allegedly involving the husband on November 8 and November 11, 2022.

The court held that determining whether those allegations were true or exaggerated would require a full-fledged trial and could not be decided in a quashing petition.

“The allegations against him are not confined to a mere general statement,” the court noted, observing that the complaint contained specific accusations of assault, abuse, seizure of a mobile phone and intimidation.

Rejecting the plea to terminate proceedings against him, the court held that the allegations disclosed a triable case and that the prosecution should continue.

Partly allowing the petition, the high court quashed the criminal proceedings against seven petitioners who were relatives of the husband.

However, it dismissed the plea insofar as the man was concerned and directed the judicial magistrate court, Bodinayakanur, to proceed with the trial against him in accordance with law.

The court clarified that its observations were limited to deciding the quashing petition and should not influence the trial court while evaluating the evidence during the course of the trial.