The Punjab and Haryana High court have overturned an FIR against a citizen of Canada for the offence of abusing his wife and refusing to support her. The Honourable Judge has held that duress should not be used as a defence against an abusive spouse, and that this can never be an excuse for violence within the boundaries of family law. This article details the facts and reasoning behind the court’s conclusion.
Introduction
A landmark decision was made by the Punjab and Haryana High Court addressing the distinction made between a matrimonial dispute and criminal liability (offence) in that the High Court dismissed an FIR against a person living in Canada and his parents for dowry and harassment by the estranged wife. The High Court held that a criminal prosecution cannot be a means to preserve the remaining elements of an irretrievable marital break-up, particularly when the allegations have arisen out of a broken relationship.
Justice Kirti Singh, in granting the estranged husband’s petition, stated that the judicial process of case management justifies the intervention of the court when the criminal case has persisted for reasons other than achieving justice; i.e., to continue with a personal vendetta generated from a matrimonial dispute.
Background of the Case
The marriage between the parties was solemnised in March 2018. Within just 28 days of the wedding, the wife moved to Canada to live with the petitioner and pursue her studies. The husband later joined her in Canada on a spouse visa.
Over time, some discrepancies arose between the two spouses, leading to their individual living situations. In December 2020, the husband filed a petition with the Superior Court of Justice of Canada for the dissolution of the marriage. At the same time, the wife filed a complaint with the Canadian authorities for assault and harassment. After the investigation, the Canadian authorities closed the case with an unconditional discharge of the husband because there was not enough evidence to support the case.
Later, in 2022, the Canadian court issued a divorce decree in favour of the husband.
During the time when the marital dispute was pending abroad, the wife filed an FIR in India in May 2021. The FIR was filed against the husband and his parents for demanding dowry, ill-treating, and abusing her from the time of engagement to the marital life in India and later in Canada.
Key Issues Before the Court
The High Court was mainly required to decide on the following:
- Whether there was a prima facie case to justify the continuance of criminal proceedings based on the FIR.
- Whether the criminal law was being abused to settle personal scores as a result of matrimonial discord.
- Whether the courts in India could continue criminal proceedings despite the fact that a large part of the alleged crimes took place outside India.
Court’s Observations and Findings
Justice Kirti Singh made several crucial observations while analysing the case:
- Matrimonial Discord as the Central Context
The Court held that the allegations in the FIR were inextricably connected with the breakdown of the marriage. The couple was no longer working together as a unit, and the criminal charges seemed to have emerged as a direct consequence of the matrimonial discord. - Lines between Disputes in the Private and Criminal liability
The Court held that in matrimonial disputes, personal grievances often tend to merge with criminal charges. In such cases, the Court is faced with the difficult task of making a distinction between criminal offenses and emotional responses to matrimonial dissolution. - Lack of Substantiating Evidence
The charges against the husband’s parents were termed as “vague, accusatory, and lacking material evidence.” The complainant had failed to place tangible evidence on record to support her allegations. - Emotional Response to a Deteriorating Marriage
The FIR was termed as an “outburst from a matrimonial dispute” and not as a statement of criminal activity sufficient to constitute an offense amenable to prosecution. - Territorial Jurisdiction
A major part of the alleged misconduct took place in Canada. The Court held that if the essential ingredients of the alleged crime are not made out in India, then the continuation of the criminal case would be legally unsustainable. - Abuse of the Process of Law
The Court held that the continuance of the case would constitute an abuse of the criminal justice system. The Court’s intervention was necessary to allow the parties to move on from their past disputes and live without the burden of unnecessary litigation.
Arguments Presented by the Parties
On behalf of the Petitioner (Husband):
Senior Advocate P. S. Ahluwalia argued that the FIR was the result false implication. He pointed out that the wife had stayed in India for only 28 days after the marriage and had later moved to Canada for educational reasons, financially supported by the husband’s family.
He also argued that there were dissensions between the couple when the wife allegedly asked the husband to give up the family’s agricultural land in India so that he could start a business in Canada. Reconciliation efforts by the husband’s family failed, leading to the end of the marital relationship.
Ahluwalia also argued that the wife’s complaint filed in Canada was a reaction to the divorce case and had already been struck down for lack of merit. The divorce decree obtained from the Canadian court in January 2022 was also relied upon as additional evidence of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
On behalf of the Respondent (Wife):
Opposing the quashing of the case was advocate Ramandeep Singh Brar, who argued that the charges were of a serious nature and should be tried as per the law.
Final Decision
After considering the charges, evidence, and the law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court decided to quash the FIR and all subsequent proceedings that followed. This included the look-out circular and the summons that were issued against the husband.
The Court held that while the charge of harassment in a matrimonial relationship needs to be dealt with sensitivity and gravity, the law cannot be used as a means to continue the bitterness in a relationship that has failed.
Conclusion
This case highlights the importance that the criminal justice system must not be used as a tool of revenge in the matter of matrimonial disputes. In this case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reiterated the importance of the justice system protecting the victim as well as protecting its citizens from being randomly prosecuted. This case highlights the importance of having a balanced administration of justice in matrimonial disputes.
