Marriage is spiritual union, not legal battle: Bombay High Court flags misuse of matrimonial laws

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has quashed a criminal case involving serious charges of cruelty, unnatural sex, and dowry harassment, observing that marriage is a sacred institution and should not be reduced to prolonged legal battles that serve no constructive purpose.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Nitin W. Sambre and M.M. Nerlikar in an order dated July 8, 2025, that was made available on Monday (July 15, 2025), allowed three connected criminal applications seeking to quash FIR registered at Beltarodi Police Station, Nagpur, under Sections 498-A, 377 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The charges were levelled by a woman against her husband, two sisters-in-law, and a maternal aunt-in-law following a matrimonial dispute.

“Needless to mention that considering the recent trend of filing first information reports against as many as persons from husband side, has become imperative to look the matters of matrimonial disputes from a different angle, and therefore, if the parties settle their disputes amicably in order to live peacefully, it is the duty of the Court to encourage such action by entertaining the prayer for quashing of the first information report, charge sheet or criminal proceedings,” the order said.

The Bench noted that the parties had reached a mutual settlement, culminating in a decree of divorce passed by the Family Court on July 1, 2025, under Section 13(B) of the Special Marriage Act. The informant — wife also appeared before the court and gave her consent for quashing of the criminal proceedings, stating she wished to move forward in life.

“Marital discord has now a days become menace in society due to various factors. The parties who are fighting due to these marital discords are having several remedies in law. The small issue between the two are spoiling the entire life and the marriages which are sacrosanct in Hindus are at stake,” the order read.

The Bench observed that although the offences were non-compoundable, the court was empowered under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings if doing so would serve the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the legal process.

Citing precedents such as Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the court held that matrimonial offences with a predominantly civil character should not be allowed to drag on when the possibility of conviction is remote and the parties have resolved their differences.

“The right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution means more than mere survival or animal existence,” the court stated, adding that in cases where reconciliation is no longer possible, ending litigation early is essential to protect the mental and emotional well-being of both parties.

“Marriages are not merely a social contract, but a spiritual union that binds two souls together. However, now days, these scared marriages receive set back in the above circumstances. The distress, disharmony and lack of adjustment amongst the persons lead to conflict,” the judges observed.

The court also flagged the rising trend of multiple FIRs being filed against entire families in matrimonial disputes and urged courts to look at such matters through a different lens. It further noted that legislation intended to protect marital relationships – such as the Domestic Violence Act and the Special Marriage Act – is increasingly being misused, leading to a flood of litigation, psychological distress, and irreversible harm to families and children.

“It is the duty of the court to encourage a respectful settlement and not drag parties through prolonged criminal trials, especially when the dispute is private in nature and both sides have chosen to part ways amicably,” the court held.

Accordingly, the FIR, charge sheet, and criminal proceedings pending before the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur, is hereby quashed and set aside, the court observed.