False Claims Under Domestic Violence Act? SC Sets a Strong Precedent

Background of the Case

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling on March 4, 2024, quashed a domestic violence complaint filed by a wife against her husband, citing it as an abuse of legal process. The bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, observed that the allegations made in the complaint were vague and generalized, lacking specific details or substantive evidence.

The case revolves around a couple who were married in April 2018 under Hindu rites. Due to matrimonial discord, they jointly applied for a mutual divorce on October 9, 2019. However, three months later, the wife withdrew her petition and subsequently filed a complaint against her husband under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Lower Court’s Dismissal of Husband’s Plea

Following the wife’s complaint, the husband contested its maintainability, arguing that the couple had already initiated mutual divorce proceedings before the court. He sought relief on the grounds that the allegations were inconsistent with the timeline of events and appeared to be an afterthought following the withdrawal of the mutual divorce petition.

However, a Jammu court dismissed the husband’s plea, allowing the domestic violence case to proceed. The husband then approached the Supreme Court for relief.

Supreme Court’s Verdict: Complaint is ‘Vague’ and an Abuse of Legal Process

The Supreme Court, while reviewing the complaint, noted that the allegations made by the wife, including claims of being thrown out of the house and tortured, lacked specificity and preceded the date of the mutual divorce petition. The court observed that such vague complaints could not be the basis of legal action.

"The allegations which have been made such as that she has been thrown out of the house and being tortured, etc. are not only vague and generalized but they all precede the date, i.e., on 09.10.2019, on which a joint application for mutual divorce was filed," the bench noted in its order.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the entire complaint appeared to be a misuse of legal provisions, aimed at harassing the husband rather than seeking genuine justice.

"Considering the nature of the case and the allegations made in the complaint and the sequence of events which we have already narrated above, the entire complaint seems to be nothing but an abuse of the process of law," the court stated.

Legal Representation and Arguments

The petitioner husband was represented by Advocates Akshat Malpani, Vandana Gupta, and Rahul Gupta. Their arguments emphasized the inconsistency in the wife’s allegations and the chronological contradictions that undermined the credibility of the complaint.

The Supreme Court's verdict in this case is a critical development in matrimonial disputes, particularly in cases where legal provisions may be misused. The ruling underscores the need for courts to carefully scrutinize allegations in domestic violence complaints to prevent potential misuse of legal frameworks.

Conclusion

This judgment sets a precedent for future cases where complaints of domestic violence may lack substantive evidence or appear to be motivated by ulterior motives. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that while legal provisions exist to protect victims of domestic abuse, they should not be misused as tools for harassment. The ruling is likely to influence how courts assess similar complaints in the future, ensuring that genuine cases of domestic violence receive the due process they deserve while preventing the exploitation of legal protections for personal vendettas.