Bombay High Court Quashes 498A Case Filed by Judge Against Husband and In-Laws
The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a 498A IPC case filed by a judicial officer against her husband and in-laws, citing a lack of evidence. The court noted that the complaint appeared to be a counterblast to an ongoing marital dispute rather than a genuine case of cruelty.
Background of the Case
The judicial officer, based in Maharashtra, met her husband through a matrimonial website and married him in February 2018. In her complaint, she alleged that after marriage, her husband refused to have a conjugal relationship with her, leading to disputes.
She further claimed that on June 7, 2023, while her husband’s divorce petition was pending, he and his brother entered her judicial chambers and forced her to sign the petition for divorce by mutual consent. Later that day, her in-laws allegedly did the same.
As a result, she filed a police complaint on July 9, 2023, leading to an FIR under:
- Section 186 (Obstructing public servant)
- Section 353 (Criminal force against a public servant)
- Section 498A (Cruelty)
- Section 506 (Criminal intimidation)
The alleged period of the offense spanned from October 1, 2018, to June 7, 2023.
High Court’s Ruling
The husband and his family challenged the FIR, requesting the court to quash it. The High Court, after reviewing the case, found no substantial evidence supporting the claims of obstruction or cruelty.
The court observed that:
- There was no proof that the husband or in-laws prevented the judge from performing her duties.
- The judicial officer continued her work in court that day, meaning no obstruction occurred.
- Her decision to leave the courtroom and enter her chambers was voluntary, not forced.
- No evidence showed that the husband used force or created fear to prevent her from working.
- Marital disputes and conflicts alone do not amount to an offense under Section 498A IPC.
Final Verdict
Considering these findings, the Bombay High Court ruled that the 498A IPC charges were not justified and quashed the FIR against the husband and his in-laws. The case highlights the importance of distinguishing between genuine cases of cruelty and marital conflicts that escalate into legal battles.
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
