The Bombay High Court quashed an FIR against the extended family in a marital dispute, stating that a husband’s sexual incapacity is private. It allowed the case against the husband and immediate family to proceed due to serious allegations. The judgment focused on the liability of extended relatives and the court’s role in marital disputes.
Mumbai: Today (Jan 9th), the Bombay High Court quashed an FIR against extended family members in a marital dispute case, stating that a husband’s inability to engage in sexual relations is a deeply personal matter often unknown even to close relatives. However, the Court allowed the case to proceed against the husband and his immediate family, citing serious allegations that require trial.
The judgment, delivered by Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Rajesh S. Patil, addresses crucial issues concerning the criminal liability of extended family members and the judicial limits on intervening in pre-trial stages of marital disputes.
The FIR was registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:
- Section 498-A: Cruelty by husband or relatives.
- Section 417: Cheating.
- Section 506: Criminal intimidation.
- Section 34: Common intention.
The complainant accused her husband and his family of concealing his medical condition, which allegedly made him incapable of consummating the marriage. She further alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental harassment during her two years at the marital home.
The FIR implicated the husband, his parents, and several extended family members, including uncles and their spouses, alleging complicity in pressuring her into the marriage despite knowing the husband’s condition.
Key Legal Issues Addressed
1. Liability of Extended Family Members
The Court examined whether distant relatives involved in arranging the marriage could be held criminally liable. It found no substantial evidence to prove that these individuals were aware of the husband’s medical condition or coerced the complainant into the marriage.
2. Judicial Scope Under Section 482 of CrPC
The Court deliberated on whether it could partially quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) when there is no prima facie evidence against certain accused persons. It reiterated that the High Court’s role is to evaluate whether the allegations disclose a cognizable offense, leaving factual disputes to the trial court.
3. Balancing Marital Privacy and Legal Accountability
The Court highlighted the private nature of a husband’s medical condition, noting:
“Whether the husband was unable to develop physical relations and whether he has a deficiency by which he is unable to cohabit is a condition which normally is known to the person himself. This information does not travel beyond the home. Sometimes, even the nearest relatives are unable to know or notice.”
It emphasized that implicating extended relatives without clear evidence risks overextending the scope of criminal liability in matrimonial disputes.
The High Court quashed the FIR against the extended family members, citing a lack of prima facie evidence. However, it allowed proceedings against the husband and his immediate family due to the seriousness of the allegations, which included dowry harassment and cruelty.
Read the Order here:
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES