Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

High Court Strikes a Blow Against Legal Misuse: ‘Shield Not Weapon’ in Matrimonial Laws

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark decision on the 31st of October, 2023, the High Court of Jharkhand, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, has quashed the criminal proceedings against the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of a complainant in a matrimonial dispute case. The court observed the increasing misuse of Section 498-A of the IPC, stating that “the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives is being misused and the said Section is used as weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives.”

The petitioners, represented by advocate Ms. Ashma Khanam, were accused of matrimonial torture in a case that cited an alleged occurrence in Dhanbad, while the petitioners resided in Hyderabad. Evidence presented, including travel documents, cast doubt on the complainant’s claims, suggesting that the petitioners could not have been present at the alleged place of occurrence.

The court highlighted the Supreme Court’s perspective, referencing several landmark cases, including Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, to underscore the necessity for judicial scrutiny in such matters. The court’s decision reflects a growing concern over the filing of “complaints under Section 498-AIPC... in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations.”

Justice Dwivedi underscored the importance of protecting the innocent from legal harassment and the detrimental social impact of prolonged trials on familial relationships. The court’s ruling sends a clear message about the need for careful legal consideration in matrimonial disputes, and the dismissal of general and omnibus allegations when specific allegations are not established.

The case has drawn significant attention to the legal complexities surrounding Section 498-A of the IPC and its implications for family law jurisprudence. The proceedings against other accused persons will continue as per the law, as clarified by the court. The advocates representing the state and the opposite party, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava and Mr. Soumitra Baroi respectively, have taken due note of the court’s directives.

Date of Decision: 31.10.2023

Rakesh Rajput @ Rakesh VS The State of Jharkhand

Latest Legal News