Children come before marital troubles — that was the line taken by the Delhi high court in its handling of two lawsuits recently. Taking the view that children should not be caught in the crossfire between squabbling parents, the court, while deciding on the lawsuits, ruled that criminal cases filed by a woman against her husband, alleging cruelty over dowry and such offences, could be quashed.
If an accused is charged with offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), he or she cannot reach an out-of-court settlement, nor can the complaint be withdrawn. However, the court held that cases of dowry harassment or refusal to return gifts and other belongings of the wife (streedhan), though they fall under the ambit of the IPC, could be scrapped keeping in mind the couple’s children.
In the first instance, the court quashed an FIR filed under section 498A (husband or relative of the husband subjecting a woman to cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the IPC against a husband because the litigating couple had reconciled and started living “happily” with their children. “It is just and proper in the interest of justice as well as the society and the family that investigation in the case, consequent to the filing of the chargesheet and trial, is not allowed to proceed,’’ held justice Aruna Suresh.
The judge said that if investigation and trial were allowed to continue, “it is likely to generate ill-will, disharmony and misunderstanding between both parties, which will adversely affect their matrimonial life as well as the children, who will be deprived of love and affection of their parents”.
In the other case, too, the husband had been charged under sections 498 and 406 of the IPC. He agreed to pay Rs7.50 lakh to his wife towards settlement and for the upkeep of their 10-year-old son. However, the man was not willing to meet his son, saying his wife had left her matrimonial home five years ago. Noting the inordinate delay in disposing of cases related to family disputes, justice Suresh quashed the FIR filed by the wife.
Terming the husband’s unwillingness to meet his son “unfortunate”, justice Suresh expressed the hope that “with the lapse of time, good sense prevails on him and he decides to meet the child’’.
