Orissa High Court warns against ‘sweeping roping in’ of in-laws in dowry cases: ‘Criminal law not retaliation instrument’

Many a time, victims of abuse continue to engage in everyday social activities, either under compulsion or in denial of their trauma, said Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi. (Image enhanced using AI)

Acknowledging the complication of matrimonial disputes, the order added that in such matters, the courts are confronted with two sharply opposed versions of the same marriage, each claiming to be the truth.

“In such situations, the line between genuine suffering and overstatement can easily blur,” Justice Panigrahi stated.

‘FIR is matrimonial counterblast’

• The dispute arose from a marriage solemnised in July 2021.
• Following the husband’s initiation of divorce proceedings in January 2024, the wife lodged an FIR in March 2025.
• She alleged offences under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 4 (penalty for demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, claiming continuous harassment, physical violence, and the illegal retention of her stridhan.
• The petitioner-husband sought to quash the proceedings, characterising the FIR as a matrimonial counterblast and a malicious attempt to coerce his family.
• He further relied on a written “no dowry agreement” executed at the time of marriage to negate the allegations.

‘Matrimonial prosecutions are mostly complicated’

• The existence of a written “no-dowry agreement”, which the husband heavily relies upon, is not, in the court’s opinion, conclusive proof of innocence at this stage.
• The petitioner’s contention that certain incidents of cruelty are false because no medical records or independent evidence substantiate them cannot be accepted at the threshold.
• It is not uncommon that a victim of domestic assault may not immediately visit a hospital or call police, due to familial pressure or hope of preserving the marriage.
• Lack of medical certificates is therefore not fatal to a prosecution if the victim’s testimony and other circumstantial evidence can establish the occurrence.
• The husband pointed to receipts for food delivery and movie tickets around the date of an alleged assault to suggest that the couple was enjoying a normal life, hence no cruelty happened.
• Many a time, victims of abuse continue to engage in everyday social activities, either under compulsion or in denial of their trauma.
• Criminal trials impose grave suffering and stigma, and thus allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
• The charge sheet similarly lacks any prima facie material against the in-laws for this court to look the other way.
• Matrimonial prosecutions rarely present themselves in clean or uncomplicated form.
• They are born out of broken relationships, emotional hurt, and deeply personal grievances.
• Certain broad parameters guide the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC when relatives of the husband are arraigned as accused in prosecutions arising out of matrimonial discord.
• These parameters are applied with due regard to the social realities of matrimonial relationships, recognising that women may face genuine cruelty that is not always capable of precise articulation.
• At the same time, the criminal process cannot be permitted to operate on sweeping allegations that subject multiple relatives to prosecution without a discernible legal foundation.
• The allegations against in-laws are entirely casual, lacking the detail necessary to constitute their participation in the alleged cruelty or dowry demand.
• The complainant’s general statements could be reflective of her frustration or animosity arising from the marital dispute, but that cannot justify subjecting distant relatives to a criminal trial.