Allahabad HC Orders 'Cooling Period' in Matrimonial Case, Calls FIR 'Soft Porn'

The court said no arrest should be made before the end of a two-month "cooling period" in marital cruelty cases.

The Allahabad High Court on Monday, 15 June, directed that in cases of marital discord filed under Section 498A of the IPC (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), no arrest should be made before the expiry of two-month "cooling period."

(Photo: The Quint)

The Allahabad High Court on Monday, 13 June, directed that in cases of marital discord filed under Section 498A of the IPC (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), no arrest should be made before the expiry of two-month "cooling period."

Hearing a case under the charges of cruelty, attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, and voluntarily causing hurt, Justice Rahul Chaturvedi also criticised the language used by the complainant in the First Information Report (FIR), wherein she has described the sexual assault and other atrocities perpetrated against her by her husband's family.

"The language of the FIR should be a decent one and no amount of atrocities faced by the informant would justify her to use such type of caustic expression. FIR/complaint is the gateway of any criminal case and decent expression would well communicate the alleged atrocities faced by her. It is not soft porn literature where graphic descriptions should be made."

Allahabad High Court

In October 2018, Shivangi Bansal had lodged an FIR at Pilkhua Police Station of Uttar Pradesh's Hapur district against her husband and two other family members.

In her complaint, the woman alleged that her father-­in­-law Mukesh Bansal sought sexual favours from her while her brother-in-law also tried to "ravish her physically," reported news agency PTI. She has also accused her husband of forcible sex, according to her lawyer.

The complainant has also alleged that she had been pressurised for an abortion by her mother-­in­-law and sister-­in-­law, and that on refusal, all the family members "became physical with her." She also alleged that she was maltreated over a constant demand for additional dowry.

Alluding to these allegations, the court remarked, "In our traditional Indian family, where they are residing in a joint family with unmarried son, it is highly improbable and difficult to digest the allegations of demanding sexual favours from her daughter-­in-­law by father­-in-law or brother-­in-law."

'Every Matrimonial Case Exaggerated With Caustic Allegations of Dowry-Related Atrocities': Court

The high court said that during the 'cooling period' of two months, the matter of cruelty should be immediately referred to the family welfare committee (FWC), which will try to resolve the matrimonial dispute.

The high court observed:

"It is a question of common observation that every matrimonial case is being exaggerated manifold with all the pungent and caustic allegations of dowry-related atrocities involving the husband and all family members."

"This rampant practice nowadays has adversely affected our social fiber especially in northern India," the court said, adding that the "traditional fragrance" of marriage was being harmed by the "unmindful misuse" of section 498A.

Section 498A of the IPC provides for a maximum of 10 years of punishment to a woman's husband or his relatives if they subject her to cruelty.

What Happened in the Case?

The court's remarks were made during a hearing of separate revision petitions filed by Mukesh Bansal, Manju Bansal, and their son Sahib Bansal, whose wife has accused them of subjecting her to atrocities over dowry. The pleas challenged the dismissal of their discharge application by the lower court.

The high court on Monday permitted the discharge plea of in-laws, but rejected the plea of the husband and directed him to appear before the lower court.

Meanwhile, the court's contentious comments during the hearing have elicited outrage on Twitter.

(With inputs from PTI.)