SC: Trivial Irritation between Spouses Won't Be Cruelty, Sound Marriage Needs Adjustment

A Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra stressed that the foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. The top court made these observations while quashing a dowry-harassment case filed by a woman against her husband.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court on Friday said every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty and mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty.

The top court stressed that the foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment, and respecting one another. A bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said: "Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven".

Justice Pardiwala, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said the foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment, and respecting one another. He said tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. The apex court made these observations while quashing a dowry-harassment case filed by a woman against her husband.

The bench said many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole and instead of making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues.

"The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed", observed the bench.

Justice Pardiwala said a very technical and hyper sensitive approach by courts would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage and stressed that in matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children.

"The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned," he said.

Justice Pardiwala said the police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends.

"In all cases, where the wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty," he said.

The apex court set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order, which junked a plea by husband for quashing a criminal case lodged against him.

The wife had alleged that her husband and his family members allegedly demanded dowry and caused mental and physical trauma to her. It was alleged that shortly after the wedding, the husband and his family started harassing the woman on the false pretext that she had failed to discharge her duties as a wife and daughter-in-law.

"The plain reading of the FIR and the chargesheet papers indicate that the allegations levelled by the First Informant (woman) are quite vague, general and sweeping, specifying no instances of criminal conduct. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offence/offences has been disclosed…..we are of the view that the FIR lodged by the Respondent No. 2 (wife) was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition and also the domestic violence case," observed the top court.

The apex court also asked the Centre to consider introducing changes in sections 85 and 86 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to circumvent its misuse for lodging of false or exaggerated complaints.

Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita states, "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine." Section 86 expands the definition of "cruelty" to encompass both mental and physical harm to a woman.

"The aforesaid is nothing but verbatim reproduction of Section 498A of the IPC. The only difference is that the Explanation to Section 498A of the IPC, is now by way of a separate provision, i.e., Section 86 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023," said the bench.

The bench said it had asked the Centre 14 years ago to have a relook at the anti-dowry law as exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints.

"We request the Legislature to look into the issue as highlighted above taking into consideration the pragmatic realities and consider making necessary changes in Sections 85 and 86 respectively of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, before both the new provisions come into force," the bench said.

The bench directed the registry to send a copy of each of this judgment to the Union Law and Home secretaries, to the Government of India who may place it before the Minister for Law and Justice as well as the Minister for Home.