Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has refused to quash a cruelty complaint filed by a wife against her husband, observing that he reneged on the terms of a settlement agreement. The court ruled that the husband could not claim the wife was “abusing the process of law” for refusing to withdraw her complaint under the settlement agreement when he failed to fulfil his obligations.
The couple, both in their second marriage, wed in 2015 as per Arya Samaj rituals. The husband has a son with special needs from his first marriage who resides in Faridabad with his parents. The wife alleged that she faced harassment from her in-laws and was subjected to physical and mental cruelty by her husband after their return to Mumbai. She lodged an FIR in April 2018 at the Kalachowki police station.
In a mutual consent divorce petition filed in Delhi, the couple signed a settlement agreement, under which the husband agreed to clear over Rs10 lakh in housing society dues for their Parel flat, among other terms. In exchange, the wife was to withdraw the FIR. However, the husband failed to meet the agreed conditions, prompting the wife to withhold consent for the second motion of divorce.
The husband filed a contempt petition before the Delhi HC, which held her guilty for ‘willfully’ violating the settlement agreement and sentenced her to one month in civil prison and imposed a fine of Rs2,000. On the wife’s appeal, the division bench of the Delhi HC stayed the sentence, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.
A bench of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Neela Gokhale said on November 19 that under section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a party can withdraw consent at any point before the decree of divorce. The court emphasised that ‘the consent given by the parties at the time of filing the joint petition for divorce by mutual consent, must subsist till the second stage when the petition comes up for orders and a decree of divorce is finally passed.’ The High Court clarified that unless both parties freely agree to dissolve the marriage, a decree for divorce cannot be granted.
The court further observed that the husband’s failure to act on the settlement agreement undermined his arguments for quashing the FIR. Additionally, the wife’s allegations of cruelty and harassment required judicial scrutiny and could not be dismissed outright. The husband’s claim of procedural flaws and contradictory statements in the chargesheet also failed to convince the court.
Concluding that the wife’s actions were not an abuse of the legal process, the court refused to quash the FIR. It emphasised that the pending contempt proceedings in the Delhi High Court against the wife did not affect her statutory rights under the Hindu Marriage Act.
