THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, May 26: The Supreme Court has quashed domestic cruelty, domestic violence, and dowry harassment proceedings against a woman’s in-laws, observing that merely asking a wife to “adjust” in a matrimonial dispute cannot amount to criminal liability without specific allegations or overt acts.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside an earlier Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had refused to quash proceedings against the husband’s relatives.
The apex court held that vague and omnibus allegations against family members are insufficient to continue criminal prosecution in matrimonial disputes.
‘Mere Familial Association Cannot Attract Criminal Liability’
The Court observed that the complaint did not disclose any direct or specific act attributable to the in-laws under the Domestic Violence Act or dowry laws.
“The allegations against them are essentially that they supported the husband, failed to intervene in the matrimonial dispute, or asked the complainant to adjust to the situation,” the Court noted, adding that such general allegations cannot justify criminal proceedings.
The bench further said that criminal law should not be used as a tool to settle personal or family disputes without clear and legally sustainable accusations.
Case Related to Dowry Harassment Allegations
The matter arose from a matrimonial dispute after the couple married in November 2019. In 2023, the woman lodged an FIR in Madhya Pradesh alleging dowry harassment, cruelty, and domestic violence against her husband and his family members.
She claimed that dowry in cash, jewellery, and household articles had been given during marriage and alleged subsequent harassment for additional money. Separate proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act were also initiated.
Supreme Court Warns Against Misuse of Criminal Law
While quashing the proceedings against the in-laws, the Supreme Court emphasised that courts must exercise caution before allowing criminal prosecution against relatives solely based on their relationship with the husband.
The bench observed that family members being passive spectators or advising reconciliation may be morally questionable, but such conduct alone does not amount to criminal culpability unless active involvement is clearly established.
The Court also noted that since the marriage had already been dissolved by a competent family court, continuation of proceedings against the in-laws would serve no useful purpose.
However, the Court clarified that the complainant remains free to pursue legal remedies against her husband as permitted under the law.
