Bombay High Court: Distant Relatives Shouldn’t Be Dragged into 498A Cases Without Proof
The Bombay High Court has once again raised serious concerns about the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), particularly in cases where distant or unrelated family members of the husband are unnecessarily included in domestic violence cases.
Justice Vibha Kankanwadi, while quashing the domestic violence case against Jyoti Patil, noted that Patil was not living with the complainant and had been falsely implicated just because she was related to the husband.
“Courts have repeatedly observed that it has become a trend to name all of the husband’s relatives in 498A complaints, even those who never lived with the couple. This is a clear misuse of the legal process,” the judge said.
In this case, Jyoti Patil, who works as a veterinarian and lives in Bhusawal, was named in a domestic violence complaint filed by her sister-in-law. The complainant claimed that Patil and her in-laws mentally and physically harassed her.
However, the High Court pointed out that the complainant had herself admitted in her complaint that her in-laws lived in Pune and that Patil lived separately in Bhusawal.
“When the complainant herself gives different addresses for each accused and fails to explain when they lived together in a shared household, it becomes clear that no actual case of domestic violence exists against the accused,” the Court said.
The Court stressed that basic details and evidence were missing in the complaint and that it would be unjust to force someone to face trial without any solid basis.
Therefore, invoking its inherent powers, the High Court quashed the proceedings against Jyoti Patil, protecting her from unnecessary harassment through false allegations.
Case Title: Jyoti Ganesh Patil vs State of Maharashtra
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==
