Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya & vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2016

Posted on May 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Very nice judgment from High Court of Gujarat, wherein income (alimony given by Husband is income for tax purposes) hiding Knife is charged under sections 195 and 340 of CrPC.

Para 4,
The trial Court, on an application Exh.88 under sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by respondent No.2 on 13.5.2016, recorded the evidence on both the sides and directed the Registrar of Family Court to file an application before the Pradyuman Nagar police station under sections 191,192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.

Para 8,
Learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 has urged that it is very rare that the Court would go out of the way to hold that perjury has been committed and, in the instant case, it is quite obvious from the record that she had not revealed the fact that she is given permanent alimony of the sum of Rs.4,00,000/- so also all her income is shown under the Income-Tax Act.

Para 10,
Admittedly, this order has arisen on account of the affidavit given by the petitioner, wherein she declared herself a housewife having no source of income. However, she has admitted in her cross-examination that she has obtained Rs.4 lakhs from her previous husband at the time of taking divorce from him.

Para 16,
It also held that the bar would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in section 195(1)(b)(ii) have been committed with respect to a document, after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. If said offence is committed or given in evidence in Court, no complaint by Court would be necessary and a private complaint would be maintainable.

Para 18,
this Court has no reason to interfere as often it is found that the litigants coming before the Court chose to speak blatant lies and do so with complete impudence.

Para 19,
Laws which are otherwise in favour of the distressed wife when are sought to be misused by declaring completely incorrect facts and also by suppressing the material aspect, the trial Court at the time of considering the case found that the impact on the administration of justice would make it expedient for it to direct the prosecution.

Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya & vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2016

V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Posted on May 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court clearly defining the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition.

V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Citations : [1994 UJ SC 1 70], [1994 AIR SC 710], [1993 SCALE 4 488], [1994 SCC 1 337], [1994 BLJR 1 1], [1994 PUNJ LR 1 603], [1994 GLH 1 186], [1994 AN LT SC 1 14], [1994 BOMLR 96 360], [1994 ALT SC 1 14], [1994 ALR 23 77], [1994 LW 1 27], [1994 CIVILCC 558], [1993 JT SC 6 428], [1993 SUPP SCR 3 796], [1993 SUPPSCR 3 796], [1994 UJ 1 70], [1994 AIR 710]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1848484/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac91e4b014971140f2cb#20

The Index is here.

Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014

Posted on May 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment from Supreme Court asserting that ‘No automatic arrest’ in matrimonial cases. See here how this judgement has impacted the Bail-Jail industry.

“Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;
(2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
(3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction;
(8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

Most important.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may
extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014

Citations: [2014 DLT 210 599], [2014 GLR 2 1848], [2014 CRIMES SC 3 40], [2014 OLR SC 2 562], [2014 KARLJ SC 4 177], [2014 AD SC 7 697], [2014 KCCR 3 1977], [2014 JT 7 527], [2014 AIOL 411], [2014 MPHT SC 4 81], [2014 RLW SC 3 2171], [2014 CCR SC 3 144], [2014 WLN SC 3 28], [2014 AIC 140 118], [2014 MPJR SC 4 55], [2014 JLJR SC 3 313], [2015 LW CRL 1 318], [2014 ALT CRI 2 457], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 3 527], [2014 KHC 3 69], [2014 CRIMES SC 3 206], [2014 GLT SC 3 102], [2014 SLT 5 582], [2014 SCC 8 273], [2014 MLJ CRL SC 3 353], [2014 CRLJ SC 3707], [2014 AIR SCW 3930], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 532], [2014 ACR SC 3 2670], [2014 SCJ 6 219], [2014 CRILJ 3707], [2014 GUJLR 2 1848], [2014 JT 9 55], [2014 SUPREME 5 324], [2014 DMC SC 2 546], [2014 GUJ LH 2 547], [2014 KERLT 3 143], [2014 ILR 5507], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 3 362], [2014 SCALE 8 250], [2014 PLJR 3 314], [2014 AIR SC 2756], [2014 JCC SC 3 1529], [2014 KLJ 3 330], [2014 SCC CRI 3 449], [2014 SCSUPPL CHN 4 73], [2014 GLH 2 547], [2014 ALLCC 86 568], [2014 ILR KER 3 165]

Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011

Posted on May 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgment explaining the imprisonment of accused who fails to make the maintenance payments to Knife under Sec 125(3) of CrPC.

Noticing the peculiar situation where virtually the petitioner has been made to serve life sentence and the insensitivity of the Judge in the matter, we called for the lower Court records to examine for ourselves the facts because if what is being said by the Principal Judge, Family Court is to be accepted then the petitioner would virtually be serving a life sentence with no remission possible.

What is more scandalous is, as will be shown, petitioner has been kept in prison mechanically and that too for months even without any order of remand by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court.

The Code itself provides by Section 421 for warrant for levy of fine….
… A reference to Section 421 and the proviso would show that it clearly prohibits a person to be imprisoned in execution of warrant levying fine which would simply for recovery of the maintenance and, thus, there is no scope for issuance of any distress warrant for detaining a defaulter husband.

For the purposes of sentencing, the Code has provision in terms of Sections 29 and 30 thereof but the question remains that can there be a sentence straightway upon default being shown. In our view, no.

Unfortunately, in total disregard to the binding precedent, the learned Principal Judge, Family Court proceeded. The result is that the petitioner is being detained in custody ad infinitum which is against the statutory provisions.

Again, this is significant inasmuch as the maintenance being a monthly payment, for each month’s default, defaulter can be sentenced for a month’s imprisonment.

As seen above, the maintenance is to be fixed on monthly basis. The sentence has, accordingly, been limited to a month maximum for each breach.

We, therefore, hold that the detention of the petitioner cannot be justified and is contrary to the scheme as provided under Section 125 (3) of the Code. We have no option accordingly but to direct the immediate release of the petitioner, while quashing the order committing the petitioner to custody and subsequent orders of remand. The writ application is allowed.

Laljee Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011

Geeta Mehrotra and Anr Vs State Of U.P. and Anr on 17 October, 2012

Posted on May 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a popular quash judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of IPC 498A, IPC 504, IPC 506 and 3 & 4 of DP Act.

The grounds on which quash is done are

No territorial jurisdiction
No specific allegations on accused
No justification for delay of 7 years in filing complaint

Geeta Mehrotra & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 17 October, 2012

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/125470413/

Citations: [(2012) 10 SCC 741]

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009

Posted on May 5, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment from Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat as part of a three-judge bench.

Intro

Marriage took place on 25/11/1998
Appellant No.1 left for USA on 1/7/1999
Complaint was filed on 6/2/2000 under Sec.498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Charge-sheet was filed on 8/6/2000
Divorce petition was filed by the complainant, which appears to have been granted ex parte on 12/7/2001
Complainant – Sukanya has remarried on 24/8/2002

Legal points enumerated by their Lordships are

No basis for making the allegations
No explanation for the delayed lodging of the complaint was offered.
Even a cursory perusal of the complaint shows that the case at hand falls within the category (7) of the illustrative parameters highlighted in Bhajan Lal’s case
1. “Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

Sundar Babu & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009

The reportable version of judgment is here.

Sundar_Babu_&_Ors_vs_State_Of_Tamil_Nadu_on_19_February,_2009

Citations : [2009 SCC 14 244], [2010 SCC CRI 1 1349], [2009 ECRN SC 2 1288], [2009 AIOL 261], [2009 JT 13 666], [2009 SCALE 5 1], [2009 SCR 3 326]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1091787/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd328607dba63d7e6c4d8

K.Srinivas Rao Vs D.A.Deepa on 22 February, 2013

Posted on May 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment of Supreme Court confirming the divorce degree granted by Family Court.

Intro

The marriage between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife was solemnized on 25/4/1999 as per Hindu rites and customs. Unfortunately, on the very next day disputes arose between the elders on both sides which resulted in their abusing each other and hurling chappals at each other. As a consequence, on 27/4/1999, the newly married couple got separated without consummation of the marriage and started living separately.

Later on

Knife filed complaint for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC against the appellant-husband (C.C.No. 79/2009). It may be stated here that on 19/10/2009 the appellant-husband was acquitted in this case.

The appellant- husband was convicted under Section 498-A of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment. He and his parents were acquitted of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act. His parents were acquitted of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. After this judgment the respondent-wife and her parents filed a complaint in the High Court saying that since the appellant-husband was convicted he should be dismissed from service. Similar letters were sent to the High Court by the maternal uncle of the respondent-wife

In Para 22,

The statement that the mother of the appellant-husband asked her to sleep with his father is bound to anger him. It is his case that this humiliation of his parents caused great anguish to him. He and his family were traumatized by the false and indecent statement made in the complaint. His grievance appears to us to be justified.

That this statement is false is evident from the evidence of the mother of the respondent-wife, which we have already quoted. This statement cannot be explained away by stating that it was made because the respondent-wife was anxious to go back to the appellant-husband. This is not the way to win the husband back. It is well settled that such statements cause mental cruelty. By sending this complaint the respondent-wife has caused mental cruelty to the appellant- husband.

In Para 23,

The conduct of the respondent- wife in filing a complaint making unfounded, indecent and defamatory allegation against her mother-in-law, in filing revision seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the appellant-husband, in filing appeal questioning the acquittal of the appellant-husband and acquittal of his parents indicates that she made all attempts to ensure that he and his parents are put in jail and he is removed from his job. We have no manner of doubt that this conduct has caused mental cruelty to the appellant- husband.

In Para 24,

Staying together under the same roof is not a pre-condition for mental cruelty. Spouse can cause mental cruelty by his or her conduct even while he or she is not staying under the same roof. In a given case, while staying away, a spouse can cause mental cruelty to the other spouse by sending vulgar and defamatory letters or notices or filing complaints containing indecent allegations or by initiating number of judicial proceedings making the other spouse’s life miserable.

Paras 25 and 26 talk about the death of the marriage.

the appellant-husband should be directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) to the respondent-wife as and by way of permanent alimony. In the result, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside.

Directions issue by the Apex Court

a) In terms of Section 9 of the Family Courts Act, the Family Courts shall make all efforts to settle the matrimonial disputes through mediation. Even if the Counsellors submit a failure report, the Family Courts shall, with the consent of the parties, refer the matter to the mediation centre. In such a case, however, the Family Courts shall set a reasonable time limit for mediation centres to complete the process of mediation because otherwise the resolution of the disputes by the Family Court may get delayed. In a given case, if there is good chance of settlement, the Family Court in its discretion, can always extend the time limit.

b) The criminal courts dealing with the complaint under Section 498-A of the IPC should, at any stage and particularly, before they take up the complaint for hearing, refer the parties to mediation centre if they feel that there exist elements of settlement and both the parties are willing. However, they should take care to see that in this exercise, rigour, purport and efficacy of Section 498-A of the IPC is not diluted. Needless to say that the discretion to grant or not to grant bail is not in any way curtailed by this direction. It will be for the concerned court to work out the modalities taking into consideration the facts of each case.

c) All mediation centres shall set up pre-litigation desks/clinics; give them wide publicity and make efforts to settle matrimonial disputes at pre-litigation stage.

K. Srinivas Rao Vs D.A. Deepa on 22 Feb 2013

Click here to read the other judgments cited in this order.

Citations: [2013 SCC 5 226], [2013 AIOL 118], [2013 AIR SC 2176], [2013 AIR SC 1396], [2013 MHLJ SC 5 10], [2013 SUPREME 2 80], [2013 SLT 2 338], [2013 SCALE 2 735], [2013 BOMCR SC 3 129], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 2 232], [2013 JT 3 97], [2013 MPLJ SC 3 567], [2013 SCC CIV 2 775], [2013 SCC CRI 2 963], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 179], [2013 ALR 97 732], [2013 ALD 3 11], [2013 AIC 124 228], [2013 CHN 2 92], [2013 MAHLJ 5 102013 BLJ 3 379], [2013 DMC SC 1 458], [2013 ILR KER 1 813], [2013 JLJR 1 443], [2013 KHC 1 6472013 SCR 2 126], [2013 LW 2 883], [2013 PLR 171 149], [2013 CDR SC 1 161], [2013 AD SC 3 4582013 MLJ SC 3 852013 AWC SC 3 2462], [2013 WBLR SC 4 412], [2014 WLN SC 4 132], [2013 CGLRW 1 484], [2013 BOMCR 3 129], [2013 AIR SCW 1396], [2013 MAH LJ 5 10], [2013 MHLJ 5 10], [2013 ILR KERALA 1 813], [2013 RCR CIVIL 2 232], [2013 JT SC 3 97], [2013 MPLJ 3 567]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14713882/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af30e4b0149711415c0f

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/k-srinivas-rao-vs-d-a-deepa

Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007

Posted on April 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from a Supreme Court Bench comprising Justice Dalveer Bhandari has enumerated some of the illustrations of mental cruelty citing Judgments of England, America, Canada and Australia.

Intro

The appellant and the respondent are senior officials of the Indian Administrative Service, The respondent was a divorcee and had a female child from her first marriage. The custody of the said child was given to her by the District Court of Patna where the respondent had obtained a decree of divorce against her first husband, Debashish Gupta, who was also an I.A.S. officer. The respondent’s first husband, Debashish Gupta filed a belated appeal against the decree of divorce obtained by her from the District Court of Patna. Therefore, during the pendency of the appeal, she literally persuaded the appellant to agree to the marriage immediately so that the appeal of Debashish Gupta may become infructuous.

The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 13.12.1984.

… In these circumstances, the appellant has prayed that it would not be possible to continue the marriage with the respondent and he eventually filed a suit for the grant of divorce. In the suit for divorce filed by the appellant in Alipur, Calcutta, the respondent filed her written statement and denied the averments. The learned Additional District Judge came to the finding that the appellant has succeeded in proving the case of mental cruelty against the respondent, therefore, the decree was granted by the order dated 19.12.1996 and the marriage between the parties was dissolved.

The Division Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated 20.5.2003 reversed the judgment of the Additional District Judge on the ground that the appellant has not been able to prove the allegation of mental cruelty.

Key Points

Such a vital decision cannot be taken unilaterally after marriage by the respondent and if taken unilaterally, it may amount to mental cruelty to the appellant.

The finding of the High Court that the appellant started living with the respondent amounted to condonation of the act of cruelty is unsustainable in law.

The finding of the High Court that the respondent’s refusal to cook food for the appellant could not amount to mental cruelty as she had to go to office, is not sustainable….. The question was not of cooking food, but wife’s cooking food only for herself and not for the husband would be a clear instance of causing annoyance which may lead to mental cruelty.

The High Court’s finding that the husband and wife might be sleeping in separate rooms did not lead to a conclusion that they did not cohabit and to justify this by saying that the respondent was highly educated and holding a high post was entirely unsustainable. Once the respondent accepted to become the wife of the appellant, she had to respect the marital bond and discharge obligations of marital life.

During illness, particularly in a nuclear family, the husband normally looks after and supports his wife and similarly, he would expect the same from her. The respondent’s total indifference and neglect of the appellant during his illness would certainly lead to great annoyance leading to mental cruelty.

The credibility of the witness does not depend upon his financial standing or social status only. A witness which is natural and truthful should be accepted irrespective of his/her financial standing or social status.

… the appellant and the respondent have been living separately for more than sixteen and half years (since 27.8.1990). The entire substratum of the marriage has already disappeared. During this long period, the parties did not spend a single minute together. The appellant had undergone bye-pass surgery even then the respondent did not bother to enquire about his health even on telephone. Now the parties have no feelings and emotions towards each other.

Mental Cruelty Guidelines

No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty’. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive.

(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.

(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.

(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.

(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.

(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.

(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.

(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.

(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day to day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.

(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill-conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.

(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.

(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.

(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.

(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.

Samar_Ghosh_vs_Jaya_Ghosh_on_26_March,_2007

Citations : [2007 SCC 4 511], [2007 SUPREME 3 26], [2007 JT 5 569], [2007 CTC 3 464], [2007 BLJR 2 1047], [2007 RCR CIVIL 2 595], [2007 RAJ 2 177], [2007 ALD SC 4 11], [2007 ALL SCR 0 881], [2007 SCALE 5 1], [2007 SCC 4 411], [2007 SLJ SC 2 705], [2007 ALT 3 62], [2007 DMC 1 597], [2007 SCJ 3 253], [2007 WBLR 3 525], [2007 GHJ 16 204], [2007 KERLT 2 55], [2007 RAJLW 2 1357], [2007 AWC 5 4820], [2007 CLT 2 72], [2007 JCIVC 2 1028], [2007 SLT 4 76], [2007 AIOL 339], [2007 BOMCR SC 6 834], [2007 SCR 4 428], [2007 GUJ LR 2 1520], [2007 MADLJ 2 1185]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/766894/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae45e4b01497114135d2

The index page is here.

Karam Chand Ganga Prasad And Anr. Vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 October, 1970

Posted on April 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the landmark Supreme Court judgement reiterating that ‘Decisions of Civil Courts are binding on the Criminal Courts‘

Karam Chand Ganga Prasad And Anr. Vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 October, 1970

Rajesh Sharma and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 27 July, 2017

Posted on April 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

UPDATE 1:

SC Modifies The Earlier Directions Issued To Prevent Misuse Of 498A IPC, Says No To ‘Welfare Committees’

https://www.livelaw.in/breaking-sc-modifies-the-earlier-directions-issued-to-prevent-misuse-of-498a-ipc-says-no-to-welfare-committees/

UPDATE 2:

Few directions given in this judgment are held to be erroneous. Here is the new article.

https://www.livelaw.in/sec-498a-ipc-only-hc-can-quash-cases-on-settlement-a-third-agency-created-by-courts-cant-exercise-statutory-functionssc/

UPDATE 3:

In Shivangi Bansal Vs Sahib Bansal on 22 Jul 2025, Division Bench of Apex Court restored the Family Welfare Committees.

The detailed order is available here.

Guidelines issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court:

After considering the submissions of ASG A.S. Nadkarni, and Senior Advocate V. Giri, the Supreme Court has issued the following directions;

Part 1.

(a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority.

(b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing.
(c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses.
(d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication.
(e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint.
(f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter.
(g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected.
(h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit.
(i) Members of the committee may be given such basic minimum training as may be considered necessary by the Legal Services Authority from time to time.
(j) The Members of the committee may be given such honorarium as may be considered viable.
(k) It will be open to the District and Sessions Judge to utilize the cost fund wherever considered necessary and proper.

Part 2.

Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such designations may be made within one month from today. Such designated officer may be required to undergo training for such duration (not less than one week) as may be considered appropriate. The training may be completed within four months from today;

Part 3.

In cases where a settlement is reached, it will be open to the District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial Officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of the criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord;

Part 4.

If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed;

Part 5.
In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine;

Part 6.

It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted;

Part 7.

Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial.

Part 8. These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death.

Read the complete judgment here.

Rajesh Sharma & ors. Vs State of UP and Anr on 27 July, 2017

Citations: [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 821], [2017 AIR SC 3869], [2017 AJR 4 408], [2017 ALLMR CRI 3526], [2017 ALLCC 100 927], [2017 ACR 2 2225], [2017 ALT CRL AP 2 393], [2017 ALD CRL SC 2 568], [2017 BOMCR CRI 3 677], [2017 CGLJ 3 573], [2017 CCR SC 3 211], [2017 CTC 4 667], [2017 DMCSC 2 747], [2017 GLH 2 818], [2017 GLR 3 2430], [2017 ILR KER 3 425], [2017 JLJR 3 180], [2017 JCC 3 1919], [2017 KHC 4 163], [2017 KLJ 3 861], [2017 MLJ CRL 3 602], [2017 PLJR 3 240], [2017 RLW SC 3 2266], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 3 836], [2017 SCALE 8 313], [2017 SCJ 7 94], [2017 UC 3 1601], [2017 WLN SC 3 81], [2018 SCC 10 472], [2019 SCC CRI 1 3012017 SCR 9 529], [2017 GUJ LR 3 2430], [2017 GUJ LH 2 818], [2017 AIC 177 224], [2017 CRIMES 3 268], [2017 ECRN 3 381], [2018 CRI LJ 3593

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182220573/

News Article:

http://www.livelaw.in/breaking-misuse-of-s-498a-sc-directs-to-form-family-welfare-committees-to-examine-each-cases-no-arrests-before-committees-report-read-new-guidelines/

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Landmark Case

Sejalben Tejasbhai Chovatiya & vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2016

V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014

Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011

Geeta Mehrotra and Anr Vs State Of U.P. and Anr on 17 October, 2012

Sundar Babu & Ors Vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 February, 2009

K.Srinivas Rao Vs D.A.Deepa on 22 February, 2013

Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007

Karam Chand Ganga Prasad And Anr. Vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 October, 1970

Rajesh Sharma and Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 27 July, 2017