The Gujarat High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) filed against an elderly couple. The court termed these legal actions as counterblasts following their Non-Resident Indian (NRI) son's divorce from his wife.
Court's Observations on the Case
Justice D N Ray, presiding over the case, stated that the elderly petitioners were "caught in the cross-hairs in the bitter matrimonial fight between their son and the respondent No 2 (daughter-in-law)." The judge added, "I hold that the continuation of the proceedings impugned in these petitions would by themselves be an abuse of the process and would impel this court to quash all the proceedings arising out of the aforesaid impugned FIR/complaint."
Background of the Matrimonial Dispute
The petitioners' son, based in the United States, married the complainant in June 2021. However, matrimonial disputes arose within a few months of cohabitation. The husband subsequently returned to the US and filed a divorce suit in a New Jersey court, which granted a decree of divorce in February 2023.
Legal Actions Filed by the Wife
Following the divorce, the woman filed a criminal complaint with the Mahila Police Station (West) on February 28, 2023, alleging cruelty by her husband and his parents. She claimed she was denied entry to her matrimonial home on December 15, 2022, and was threatened that her husband would send divorce papers. In March 2023, she also filed a complaint under the DV Act against her husband and in-laws in a metropolitan court.
High Court's Ruling on the Complaints
The NRI's parents approached the High Court seeking quashing of both the FIR and the DV complaint. Justice Ray observed, "A perusal of the complaint makes it clear that the complainant is interested only in a financial settlement... The further attempt at filing multiple complaints against the petitioners in a case where the main grievance of the complainant would really have been against the petitioners' son, goes to demonstrate that the filing of the present complaint is nothing but an attempt to harass the petitioners."
Conclusion: Proceedings Quashed as Abuse of Process
The judge concluded, "I am of the opinion that the impugned complaints both under the DV Act as well as under the IPC are utterly improbable and are nothing but counterblasts to the civil action of divorce successfully initiated by the petitioners' son against the respondent No 2, culminating in a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioners' son." Consequently, the High Court quashed all proceedings arising from the FIR and the DV complaint.
