In matrimonial disputes, the husband’s relatives cannot be held criminally liable if they fail to intervene or ask the wife to amend the marital relationship without any evidence proving their active complicity in the crime, the Supreme Court said on Monday.
While deciding the Guna case in Madhya Pradesh, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Koteswar Singh quashed proceedings under dowry harassment and domestic violence against four family members who had been dragged in criminal cases by the wife for supporting the husband’s actions of abusing her and demanding dowry from her.
“While protecting the rights and dignity of victims of domestic violence remains of paramount importance, the courts are at the same time required to ensure that the rigors of the criminal law are not applied indiscriminately to each family member without a clear factual basis,” the bench said.
The court was deciding the petition filed by his mother-in-law, sister, brother-in-law and wife who had appealed against the November 2024 decision of the Gwalior High Court in Madhya Pradesh that upheld the charges.
While laying down rules for adjudication of such cases, the Supreme Court said, “In prosecutions arising out of matrimonial disputes, the allegations against each accused must be specific and distinct and supported by prima facie material indicating active involvement in acts of cruelty, harassment or illegal demand of dowry.”
Moreover, the ruling said: “Mere allegations that family members supported the spouse, failed to intervene, or advised the complainant to cope in the marital relationship, without anything else, would not in fact give rise to criminal liability.”
In this case, the court said that the entire dowry harassment allegations were against the husband without any specific allegation against other family members. “Criminal law cannot be allowed to become an instrument for venting personal grievances or settling family scores in the absence of clear, specific and legally sustainable allegations,” the bench said, advising lower courts to exercise a “high degree of caution” and judicial scrutiny before allowing criminal prosecution against relatives sought to be implicated merely because of their relationship to the husband.
At the same time, the court clarified that its observations should not be interpreted to mean that the husband’s relatives could never be prosecuted under the relevant criminal provisions. Explaining the basis of his decision as he wrote the judgement, Justice Singh said: “There may be situations where some relatives remain passive bystanders or fail to assist the complainant; however, such behaviour, although morally questionable, cannot automatically be raised to the level of criminal liability.”
The ruling urged the courts to follow the materials on record and if they reveal specific overt acts, active participation or direct involvement in the commission of acts of cruelty, harassment or domestic violence, then such relatives will undoubtedly be vulnerable to prosecution.
“What the court has to carefully consider is whether the allegations are genuine, specific and supported by fundamental facts, or whether they are merely a result of marital cruelty which results in a comprehensive and comprehensive involvement of all the members of the family,” the apex court said while concluding that “neither the FIR nor the domestic violence complaint nor even the subsequent pleadings before the Family Court disclose any specific overt act individually attributable to the present appellants.”
The ruling left the court open to summon the appellants if evidence emerged during the course of the trial proving that they were being pursued for any of the crimes charged against them.
The marriage in this case took place in 2019 while the FIR was filed by the wife for the first time in 2023.
