The Supreme Court of India, in the matter of Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda [2024], adjudicated upon significant issues concerning the misuse of statutory provisions under criminal law, particularly in the context of matrimonial disputes. The Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh expressed serious concerns regarding the invocation of penal provisions, namely Sections 498A (cruelty), 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offences), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), in a collective and indiscriminate manner, which often serves as a coercive mechanism against husbands and their families.

While dissolving the marriage on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, the Court observed that the statutory provisions in criminal law, enacted for the protection and empowerment of women, are frequently misused as instruments of harassment and extortion. The Bench noted: "The provisions in criminal law are for the protection and empowerment of women but sometimes are used by certain women more for purposes that they are never meant for. In recent times, the invocation of Sections 498A, 376, 377, 506 of the IPC as a combined package in most complaints related to matrimonial disputes is a practice which has been condemned by this Court on several occasions."

The judgment further elaborated on the practice of using these stringent provisions as a means of exerting undue pressure on the husband and his family. "In certain cases, the wife and her family tend to use a criminal complaint with all the above serious offences as a platform for negotiation and as a mechanism and a tool to get the husband and his family to comply with their demands, which are mostly monetary in nature," the Court observed. The Bench highlighted that such actions, whether impulsive or part of a deliberate strategy, are often exacerbated by external actors devising manipulative schemes aimed at achieving ulterior objectives.

The Court expressed particular disquiet about the approach of law enforcement authorities, who, in some instances, act precipitously by effectuating arrests of husbands and their relatives, including aged parents and infirm grandparents, without a robust preliminary investigation. This, coupled with the trial courts’ frequent reluctance to grant bail, often results in unwarranted legal harassment, tarnishing reputations and escalating minor domestic disputes into irreparable conflicts. The judgment remarked: "The overall effect is that minor disputes snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and reputation, leading to the relationship turning so sour that reconciliation or cohabitation becomes impossible."

The Bench held  the importance of exercising judicial prudence in the application of these penal provisions, cautioning against their misuse as tools for "chastising, threatening, domineering, or extorting" spouses. The judgment resonates with the Supreme Court’s prior jurisprudence in Dara Lakshmi Narayana vs. State of Telangana, where the misuse of Section 498A IPC was critically examined, underscoring the necessity of establishing a prima facie case before prosecuting the husband and his family.

Further, Justice Nagarathna expounded on the sanctity of the Hindu marriage, reiterating its characterization as a sacrament rather than a mere contractual arrangement. Citing the observations made in Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal, the Court reaffirmed that the institution of Hindu marriage should not be trivialized as a superficial societal event marked by "song and dance" or "wining and dining." Instead, it should be preserved as a sacred institution imbued with solemnity.

The judgment also addressed the issue of alimony, asserting that it should not serve as a punitive measure against the ex-husband but should ensure the ex-wife's welfare and enable her to maintain a decent standard of living. The Bench clarified: "An ex-husband cannot be expected to maintain an ex-wife indefinitely based on his present status. Permanent alimony should not equalize wealth but must ensure a reasonable standard of living for the wife, considering all relevant factors."

Case Title: Rinku Baheti vs. Sandesh Sharda
Case No: TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.278 OF 2023
Bench Details: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh