Matrimonial cases must not be closed routinely, says Delhi HC

The court called the situation a “textbook example” of how affluent individuals attempt to exploit the law by coercing victims into settlements, despite the criminal nature of the offence.
Delhi High Court
Delhi High Court File Photo | PTI
Updated on
2 min read

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a criminal case against a man accused of torturing his estranged wife, stressing that matrimonial offences should not be dismissed routinely, especially when the victim opposes it.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that while the couple had initially agreed to a mutual divorce and settlement, the woman later opposed the closure of the case, alleging that her husband took back the settlement amount and continued to subject her to cruelty.

The court called the situation a “textbook example” of how affluent individuals attempt to exploit the law by coercing victims into settlements, despite the criminal nature of the offence.

The court highlighted that although settlements can sometimes render a trial unnecessary, offences tied to matrimonial relationships should not be quashed automatically, particularly when the victim denies any settlement.

It further noted that the use of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure must be done sparingly, especially when the crime involves harm to society.

In this case, the couple had married in 2012, and an FIR was filed against the man in 2015, accusing him of criminal breach of trust and cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The original settlement agreement included a payment of Rs 45 lakh to the woman, with an understanding that she would withdraw all cases.

However, the woman contended that the agreement was void because the second motion of the divorce did not take effect and that her husband had not only reclaimed the settlement but also seized her independent business earnings.

Rejecting the man’s plea, the High Court stated that the cause of action still persisted, as the man had failed to abide by the terms of the settlement. His conduct, the court ruled, continued to be criminal in nature, and there was no ground to quash the FIR.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com