The Bombay High Court at Nagpur recently flagged the increasing misuse of matrimonial laws and underscored the court’s role in encouraging respectful settlement of such disputes [ARP v State of Maharashtra].
A Bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and MM Nerlikar said that laws like Domestic Violence Act, the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act were enacted to improve marital relationships but are now being misused and this has led to a lot of litigation and has burdened courts.
“We are experiencing that, Legislation intended to improve marital relationships, such as the Domestic Violence Act, the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act etc., are frequently misused by parties, resulting in multiplicity of litigation, that not only burdens the Court, but, also cause mental as well as physical harassment, endless conflict, financial loss and irreversible harm to children and other family members. In such cases, the Court should support a respectful settlement to terminate all litigation between the parties while protecting their life and liberty, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.
In a reflection on the social impact of such disputes, the Court also lamented about the fragility of marriage in present times.
“Marital discord has now a days become menace in the society due to various factors. The parties who are fighting due to these marital discord are having several remedies in law. The small issue between the two are spoiling the entire life and the marriages which are sacrosanct in Hindus are at stake. Marriages are not merely a social contract, but, a spiritual union that binds two souls together. However, now a days these scared marriages receive set back in the above circumstances. The distress, disharmony and lack of adjustment amongst the persons lead to conflict."
It made the observations while quashing criminal proceedings against four family members accused in a matrimonial dispute
The Court was hearing a group of applications filed by a man, his two sisters, and his maternal aunt, all named in a December 2023 First Information Report (FIR) lodged by his wife at Beltarodi Police Station in Nagpur.
The FIR alleged offences under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or his relatives) and 377 (unnatural sex) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The wife had accused the husband and his relatives of physical and mental cruelty, sexual assault, dowry harassment and digital intrusion. A charge sheet was subsequently filed and trial proceedings commenced before a Magistrate’s court.
However, after a settlement was reached, the parties obtained a mutual consent divorce from the family court on July 1, 2025. The complainant-wife also filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that she no longer wished to pursue the criminal case. She appeared in person and confirmed her consent to quashing the proceedings.
Taking note of the settlement and the divorce decree, the High Court accepted the argument that the continuation of the case would serve no purpose.
“We are of the opinion that matrimonial disputes, if re-union is not possible, shall be put to an end as early as possible otherwise the life of persons will be ruined, if it is permitted to go on and would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.
It also commented on the rising tide of criminal complaints in matrimonial disputes and underscored the duty of courts to encourage amicably settle such disputes.
“Needless to mention that considering the recent trend of filing first information reports against as many as persons from husband side, has become imperative to look the matters of matrimonial disputes from a different angle, and therefore, if the parties settle their disputes amicably in order to live peacefully, it is the duty of the Court to encourage such action by entertaining the prayer for quashing of the first information report, charge sheet or criminal proceedings,” the Bench said while quashing the case.
Advocate SP Sonwane appeared for the husband and his relatives.
Additional Public Prosecutor SM Ukey appeared for the State.
Advocate J B Gandhi appeared for the wife.
[Read Judgment]