‘Can’t use law for revenge’: Calcutta High Court bins man’s case against wife, relatives

The court observed that the complaint appeared to be a frustrated move by the husband after facing multiple proceedings initiated by his estranged wife. It said he had implicated all 17 petitioners, “since he felt that the entire family conspired against him and he was cheated, but the law does not permit the court to be used as a platform to express a personal vendetta.”

Wedding, allegations, FIR

The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised on November 21, 2016, between the complainant husband and the petitioner wife. According to the wife and family, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty soon after the wedding, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home. She initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and later lodged an FIR against her husband and his family under Section 498A (husband or his relatives subjecting woman to cruelty) and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das heard the matter on July 17.

The husband, however, alleged that he had financially supported his wife and her family by lending money to his in-laws, funding her education, and bearing her medical expenses. He claimed that his wife deserted him, refused to return despite efforts at reconciliation, and later failed to honour a mutual divorce settlement. He also alleged that she remarried during while the first marriage was intact, prompting him to file a criminal complaint against her and 16 of her relatives for cheating, bigamy, theft and criminal intimidation.

The family members then moved the high court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings and stating that the complaint was a retaliatory move arising out of the matrimonial dispute and contained only vague allegations.

Nothing to back allegations: HC

The Supreme Court has repeatedly noted that false implications through vague, general allegations is common in matrimonial disputes, the high court said.

The husband claims he gave money to his father-in-law and other in-laws several times at his wife’s request. He also claimed to have spent a considerable amount on his wife’s higher education during 2017–2018, besides paying for her medical treatment in 2018. Despite this, he alleged that his wife filed false complaints against him before the protection officer and lodged an FIR under IPC Section 498A in 2018.

He said his wife did not appear before the court in the mutual divorce case or in a later matrimonial case. He later claimed to have learnt that she had married another man while their marriage was still legally valid. He also alleged that she gave birth to a baby girl in 2022.

Even when there was nothing to show that the offences were committed, the magistrate took cognisance without considering the lack of specific details to back the allegations, the high court observed. Issuing an order to appear in court is a serious matter, and the Supreme Court has cautioned courts that before such an order is issued, they must ensure there is enough initial evidence to show that the alleged offences may have been committed.

Allowing the plea, the court quashed the entire criminal proceedings against the wife and her 16 family members, finding it a gross abuse of process.