Continuing criminal case against kin of estranged couple after divorce has no purpose: SC
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan passed the direction while quashing an FIR against a father-in-law booked under provisions of Dowry Act and IPC provisions, including Sections 498A .
The top court said the power under Article 142 must be invoked to advance the cause of complete justice in matters of such nature.
"Once the marital relationship has ended in divorce and the parties have moved on with their lives, the continuation of criminal proceedings against family members, especially in the absence of specific and proximate allegations, serves no legitimate purpose," the bench said.
The order continued, "It only prolongs bitterness and burdens the criminal justice system with disputes that are no longer live. The law must be applied in a manner that balances the need to address genuine grievances with the equally important duty to prevent its misuse."
The apex court said the power to quash such proceedings was essential to uphold fairness and bring about a "quietus to personal disputes that have run their course".
Referring to its judgements, the bench said the family members of the husband ought not to be unnecessarily roped into criminal proceedings stemming from matrimonial discord.
"The court observed that it has become a recurring tendency to implicate every member of the husband's family, irrespective of their role or actual involvement, merely because a dispute has arisen between the spouses," it said.
The bench observed the verdicts further held it to be abuse of law if the complaint was bereft of specific particulars, especially where the relatives sought to be prosecuted resided separately or had no connection with the matrimonial home.
The order came on an appeal filed by man challenging an order of Madhya Pradesh High Court which refused to quash the FIR lodged by the man's daughter-in-law.
The top court said the estranged couple was separated by a decree of divorce in 2021, which attained finality and not challenged by either side.
Both parties were stated to be leading independent lives.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
a few seconds ago
- Indian Express
Today in Politics: What will PM Modi's 12th Independence Day speech focus on?
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will deliver his 12th consecutive Independence Day address to the nation on Friday from the Red Fort premises. In the centrepiece annual event, the PM is expected to lay out his government's agenda, present its report card, make important policy and programme announcements and speak on major national issues. While Modi spent most of the time of his speech reeling out statistics about the work done by his government in multiple sectors over the last decade, calling for faster reforms and promising to work harder in his third term, the few ideological and political points he made stood out. Reframing the BJP's demand for a common civil code to do away with the Muslim personal law as a call for a 'secular civil code', Modi said India has had a 'communal civil code' for long. 'The Supreme Court has repeatedly discussed a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India. It is true that the civil code that we have is a communal civil code. It is based on discrimination. It is our duty to fulfil the vision of our constitution makers,' said the PM. The framing was a well-thought-out answer to the Opposition's accusation over decades that the BJP wants UCC because it wants to replace the Muslim personal law on issues such as marriage and inheritance that affect the Muslim community. Recalling that the Constitution placed the vision for UCC in the Directive Principles of State Policy and that the state should strive towards it — Article 44 talks about the need for it — Modi painted the opponents of the idea as the backers of a 'communal' civil code, using the language of the Opposition to hit out at it. In a clear hint that he would not change his politics because the BJP had fallen short of a majority on its own, Modi had called for simultaneous elections at the Lok Sabha and the state Assemblies. He pointed out that the Ram Nath Kovind Committee, which had been set up to study the idea's feasibility, had given a good recommendation for the same. This time, the PM faces two challenges. One, a tense trade standoff between India and the US after President Donald Trump imposed tariffs of up to 50 per cent on India even as bilateral negotiations continue for a deal. Two, the Opposition's growing protests against the Special Intensive Roll (SIR) exercise in Bihar. All eyes will be on the PM's response to these two key discussions. In her first detailed public remarks on Operation Sindoor, President Droupadi Murmu Thursday hailed the country's 'steely resolve' in responding to the Pahalgam terrorist attack and pointed to how the world has taken note of India's stance on fighting terror. Addressing the nation on the eve of the 79th Independence Day, President Murmu said, 'I believe Operation Sindoor will go down in history as an example in humanity's fight against terrorism.' In her 22-minute address, the President also dwelt at length on India's resilience amid stress in the global economy, and the contribution of farmers and workers towards the country's GDP growth. 'In the economic field, our achievements are all the more noticeable… With a GDP growth rate of 6.5 percent in the last fiscal, India is the fastest growing among the major economies in the world,' Murmu said. 'Even amid stress in the global economy, demand at home is pacing ahead. Inflation has remained under control. Exports are rising. All key indicators show the economy in the pink of health. This is as much due to carefully calibrated reforms and sagacious economic management as due to the hard work and dedication of our workers and farmers,' the President said. On Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam attack, the President said, 'This year we had to face the scourge of terrorism. Killing innocent citizens on holiday in Kashmir was cowardly and utterly inhuman. India responded in a decisive manner and with steely resolve. Operation Sindoor showed that our armed forces are prepared to meet any eventuality when it comes to guarding the nation… With strategic clarity and technical capability, they destroyed terrorist hubs across the border.'
Hindustan Times
2 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
J&K HC fixes Sept 26 for hearing MLA nomination case
The Jammu and Kashmir high court on Thursday granted time to petitioner Ravinder Sharma, J&K Congress spokesperson, to file a rejoinder in the MLA nomination case and fixed its next hearing on September 26. Senior Supreme Court lawyer Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi is representing Sharma in the case. (File) 'In the significant case regarding the nomination of five MLAs to J&K assembly , the HC on Thursday fixed September 26 as next date for hearing while allowing the petitioner and others to file rejoinder if any, before the court adjudicated the matter,' said Sharma in a statement issued here. A division bench comprising justice Sanjeev Kumar and justice Rajesh Sekhri on Thursday accepted Sharma's plea and allowed him and others to file rejoinder before the next date of hearing. Following response of the Union home ministry before the J&K HC describing nomination of five MLAs to the legislative assembly as it's prerogative, petitioner Ravinder Sharma on August 11 had said that he will file a rejoinder to the reply submitted by the Centre before the HC fixed the date for the final hearing. Senior Supreme Court lawyer Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi is representing Sharma in the case. Sharma further said that as a petitioner he has challenged provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act that allow the LG to nominate five MLAs without the aid and advice of the council of ministers and in excess of the sanctioned strength of the J&K Assembly—114 members (90 elected and 24 reserved for PoJK). 'The five nominations are over and above the total strength of 114, which is wrong,' he asserted. 'Moreover, such nominations can turn a minority into a majority, or a majority into a minority, which goes against the basic structure of the Constitution', he added.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US Supreme Court upholds Mississippi social media age verification law
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused for now to block enforcement of a Mississippi law aimed at regulating the use of social media by children, an issue of growing national concern. The justices rejected an emergency appeal from a tech industry group, NetChoice, that is challenging laws passed in Mississippi and other states that require social media users to verify their ages. The court had been asked to keep the law on hold while a lawsuit plays out. There were no noted dissents from the brief, unsigned order. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote to say that NetChoice could eventually succeed in showing that the law is indeed unconstitutional. Kavanaugh said he nevertheless agreed with the court's decision because the tech group had not shown it would suffer legal harm if the measure went into effect as the lawsuit unfolded. NetChoice argues that the Mississippi law threatens privacy rights and unconstitutionally restricts the free expression of users of all ages. A federal judge agreed and prevented the 2024 law from taking effect. But a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled in July that the law could be enforced while the lawsuit proceeds. It's the latest legal development as court challenges play out against similar laws in states across the country. Parents and even some teenagers are growing increasingly concerned about the effects of social media use on young people. Supporters of the new laws have said they are needed to help curb the explosive use of social media among young people, and what researchers say is an associated increase in depression and anxiety. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch told the justices that age verification could help protect young people from sexual abuse, trafficking, physical violence, sextortion, and more, activities that Fitch noted are not protected by the First Amendment. NetChoice represents some of the country's most high-profile technology companies, including Google, which owns YouTube; Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat; and Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram. NetChoice has filed similar lawsuits in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Utah.
