Anticipatory Bail In Matrimonial Disputes | Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct Cannot Be Treated As Automatic Grounds For Custodial Interrogation: Delhi High Court

"The court must examine each case on the basis of its individual factual matrix. Not all cases alleging sexual misconduct in matrimonial FIRs are false and not all cases so alleging are true." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 28, 2026, held that allegations of sexual misconduct in matrimonial disputes do not automatically necessitate custodial interrogation and must be scrutinized based on the individual factual matrix of the case.

A bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that while the judiciary must be cautious not to generalize that such allegations are always false, the court must simultaneously guard against the trend of adding heinous charges to matrimonial FIRs solely to bypass the protective guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

The applicant, a 79-year-old retired government servant, sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR registered at PS Mukherjee Nagar. While the FIR was initially filed for offences under Section 498A/406 IPC, charges under Section 354/354A/376 IPC and Section 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) were subsequently added. The complainant, a double-graduate permanent resident of Canada, alleged instances of sexual harassment and assault by her father-in-law.

The court was primarily called upon to determine whether the custodial interrogation of an aged accused is required despite the absence of cogent evidence of his involvement. Further, the court examined whether the delayed reporting of alleged sexual offences and the broader context of a matrimonial dispute weakened the necessity for custodial detention during the investigation phase.

Investigative Conduct

The court expressed dissatisfaction with the state’s contention that the accused failed to cooperate with the investigation. Upon inquiry, the Investigating Officer admitted that notices to join the investigation were issued only verbally and were not documented in the Case Diary. The court noted that such an exercise by the investigator fails to inspire confidence and does not justify the necessity for custodial interrogation.

Court Highlights The Shift In Litigation Trends

The bench observed a concerning trend where parties, in an effort to circumvent the protective principles established in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, increasingly incorporate allegations of sexual misconduct in matrimonial FIRs to ensure arrest. The court emphasized that while matrimonial litigation often involves emotional and social complexities, the judiciary must balance the rights of the complainant with the necessity of preserving the liberty of the accused.

"Custodial Interrogation Not A Prerequisite For Recovery"

The bench further observed that the recovery of stridhan does not fall within the domain of the bail court, nor does it justify custodial interrogation. Highlighting the delay in the FIR, the court noted that the alleged offences occurred in 2022, while the complaint was lodged in 2026. The court found that such prolonged silence, coupled with photographic evidence depicting the parties as a "happy family," raised doubts that warranted the grant of relief at this stage.

Individual Assessment In Matrimonial Matters

The court reiterated that allegations must be tested against the individual facts of the case, emphasizing that the court is not a forum for settling property or custody disputes. Regarding the child's custody, which was the focal point of previous hearings, the court reminded the parties that the welfare of the child must supersede the adversarial nature of matrimonial conflict, cautioning that "custodial parent is perceived by the child as devil" in such litigations.

Consequently, the court allowed the anticipatory bail application. It directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount. The court clarified that its observations were limited strictly to the purpose of adjudicating the anticipatory bail plea and would not impact the final trial on merits.

Date of Decision: 28 September 2026