Can a husband’s married sisters be dragged into a Domestic Violence case merely because the wife alleges that they instigated him to demand dowry? The Gujarat High Court found the allegations against two separately residing sisters-in-law to be general and quashed the proceedings against them.

AHMEDABAD: The Gujarat High Court has quashed Domestic Violence Act proceedings against two sisters of a husband, noting that both women were married much before the complainant’s marriage and were living separately.

Justice A.Y. Kogje observed that the allegations in the complaint were mainly against the husband and that the only allegation against his two sisters was that they allegedly instigated him to demand dowry.

The marriage between the complainant and the son of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 was solemnised on 1 November 2013 according to Muslim customs. Two children were born from the marriage.

According to the petitioners, the wife left the matrimonial home along with the children on 21 July 2022 and later filed Criminal Misc. Application No. 316 of 2022 under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act against members of her husband’s family.

The husband’s parents and his two sisters originally filed the petition. However, the case was not pressed on behalf of the father-in-law and mother-in-law. Therefore, the High Court considered the quashing plea only for the two sisters.

The sisters argued that they had never lived with the complainant and had been married long before their brother's marriage. They claimed that they were unnecessarily included in the case through vague and general allegations.

The wife, however, alleged that she suffered mental and physical harassment and that her husband demanded articles such as a laptop, watch and mobile phone. She further alleged that his family members instigated him.

After examining the complaint, the High Court found that the allegations were mainly against the husband. The Court also noted that the husband was a dentist and that the complainant herself stated that she had lived separately with him in Pune while he was pursuing further studies.

The Court observed:

“The Court is of the opinion that looking to the complaint as a whole, the allegations are general in nature.”

It further noted that the only allegation against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 was that they allegedly instigated their brother to demand dowry.

The Court said:

“Apart from this, there is no other allegation against petitioner Nos.3 and 4.”

Since both sisters were married much before the complainant and were residing separately, the Court concluded:

“So, question of mental and physical torture by them does not arise.”

The High Court also took note of earlier matrimonial proceedings filed by the complainant, including a maintenance case, Section 498A IPC proceedings and a Domestic Violence Act case against members of the husband’s family. According to the judgment, those earlier proceedings were later withdrawn after settlement through elders and community leaders.

The Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, which discussed misuse of Section 498A IPC and the tendency to involve husbands' relatives.

The High Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s warning that Section 498A had, in some cases, been:

“used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives.”

The Supreme Court had also observed:

“The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision.”

The Court further relied on Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, where the Supreme Court had specifically discussed the problem of involving married sisters and other relatives in matrimonial cases.

The Supreme Court had observed:

“The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon.”

It further stressed that allegations against relatives living in different cities required careful scrutiny.

Another significant observation relied upon by the High Court was:

“The tendency of over-implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases.”

On the facts before it, the Gujarat High Court found that no ingredients were made out against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 under Sections 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 of the Domestic Violence Act.

Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Application No. 316 of 2022 and all proceedings arising from it were quashed against the husband’s two sisters.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Husband’s family cannot become automatic collateral damage: The two married sisters were pulled into the DV case even though they were living separately and had no specific act attributed to them.
• A vague claim of “instigation” should not become a licence to prosecute relatives: The High Court found no concrete allegation showing what the sisters actually did.
• Men’s families often pay the price of matrimonial litigation: The complaint did not stop with the husband; his sisters too had to approach the High Court to get themselves out of the case.
• Repeated proceedings can become punishment by process: The judgment noted earlier 498A, maintenance and DV proceedings involving the husband’s family before the present complaint was filed.
• Courts must separate real allegations from over-implication: The High Court quashed the DV proceedings against the sisters after finding that the legal ingredients were not made out against them.