It is undoubtedly a matter of great importance that the Supreme Court once again in Rinku Baheti vs Sandesh Sharda in Transfer Petition (Civil) No.278 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024 INSC 1014 and so also in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1021 that was pronounced as recently as on December 19, 2024 has expressed its serious concerns about the misuse of domestic violence and dowry laws by disgruntled wives and cautioned women most unequivocally not to abuse the laws which are meant for their protection.

It is unaffordable to just gloss over what the Apex Court observed most unequivocally that more often than not, provisions like Section 498A(cruelty), 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural sex) and 506(criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code are invoked as a combined package to pressurize the husband to accede to the demands of the wife in matrimonial cases. What culminates as an overall effect is that minor disputes snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and reputation and washing dirty linen in public, eventually leading to the relationship turning sour to the extent that there remains no possibility of reconciliation or cohabitation.

To recapitulate, while quashing a Section 498-A IPC (cruelty) case that was levelled against a husband and in-laws of wife, this same Supreme Court Bench in a remarkable judgment titled Dara Lakshmi Narayana & Others vs State of Telangana & Another in Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 16239 of 2024 in the exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024 INSC 953 that was pronounced as recently as on December 10, 2024 had cautioned most strongly about the growing most reprehensible and nefarious tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of matrimonial discord. This is what is most utterly disgusting which definitely calls for strictest punishment to women and her relatives who conspired to frame false charges against husband and his relatives! It brooks no more delay any longer!

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon'ble Ms Justice BV Nagarathna for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of herself and Hon'ble Mr Justice Pankaj Mithal sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
This transfer petition has been filed by the petitioner-wife under Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short CPC), seeking the following reliefs:

1. Grant transfer of Divorce Petition case filed under section 13 (1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 bearing RCS(HM) No. 1379 of 2022 titled as Sandesh Sharda Versus Rinku Baheti pending in the Hon'ble Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts District Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh to the Court of Ld. Principal Judge, Family Courts, District Pune, Maharashtra; and
    
2. Pass such other order(s) or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of the justice.
    

As we see, the Bench then stipulates in para 2 that:
The question for consideration before us is not just whether the petitioner is entitled to the aforesaid relief, but also whether this Court, upon the application filed by the respondent-husband, can exercise its powers under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India to grant a decree of divorce to the parties herein on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. If yes, then on what terms. In the above backdrop, we have heard the application in the first instance.

Factual Background
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that:
Briefly stated, the facts of the case as narrated in the application filed by the respondent/applicant are that the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband got married on 31.07.2021 as per Hindu rites and rituals at Pune. It was a second marriage for both the parties. The respondent had obtained a decree of divorce from his first wife on 09.11.2020. The said marriage had subsisted for almost two decades and he has two children from his first marriage. The respondent is a citizen of the United States of America (USA) and is engaged in the business of Information Technology consultancy services in USA. The petitioner is a post-graduate who has a degree in Finance and further has studied Naturopathy and Yogic Sciences. The parties met through a matrimonial portal in May 2020 and decided to tie the knot after a few months.

1. The petitioner and the respondent started having marital discord, largely over the issue of respondent's continued involvement with his children, ex-wife and ailing father. The respondent husband is stated to have mooted the idea of separation by mutual consent, which was not acceptable to the petitioner. The respondent even submitted a complaint at Police Station Habibganj and filed a complaint dated 22.07.2022 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter CrPC), alleging that as a result of constant fights between the parties, the petitioner has been subjecting the respondent to mental cruelty by threatening him with dire consequences like taking her own life and filing false criminal cases against the respondent and his family. Thus, the respondent had sought appropriate action against the petitioner and an impartial investigation in future if the petitioner took any untoward step.
    
2. Thereafter, on 01.08.2022, the respondent filed a divorce petition bearing RCS(HM) No.1146/2022 before the Family Court, Bhopal, under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter HMA). But the same was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 16.08.2022. Just before withdrawing the said divorce petition, the parties filed a second petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(1) of HMA, bearing RCS(HM) No. 1215/2022, on 13.08.2022 before the Family Court at Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner has alleged that the respondent had fraudulently obtained her signatures on this second divorce petition. Be that as it may, the said petition was also dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2022, on the ground that the parties had not completed the statutorily mandated period of separation of one year as per Section 13B(1) of the HMA.
    
3. Subsequently, on 14.09.2022, the respondent filed a third divorce petition bearing RCS(HM) No. 1379 of 2022 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, seeking divorce from the petitioner on the ground of cruelty. The said petition has been contested by the petitioner and is also the subject matter of the present transfer petition before this Court.
    
4. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed two criminal cases:
   1. FIR No.586 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022 before the Police Station Yerwada, District Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 360, 427, 452, 454 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, IPC) which was filed against an employee of respondent's company;
   2. FIR No. 588 of 2022 dated 15.12.2022 before the Police Station Yerwada, District Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 376, 377, 420, 498A, 503, 506, 509 of the IPC and Sections 66 and 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act, 2000, for short) which was filed against the respondent and the respondent's father.
   Interestingly, the second FIR dated 15.12.2022 was filed by the petitioner on the same day when she was scheduled to appear before the Family Court in the divorce case filed by the respondent-husband. Pursuant to the second FIR, a Look Out Circular (LOC) dated 19.12.2022 was issued from the Bureau of Investigation against the respondent and consequently, the respondent was arrested on 25.12.2022 from the international airport at Mumbai while he was leaving for USA. He was finally released on regular bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune by order dated 21.01.2023, resulting in the respondent spending almost a month in custody.
    
5. Just a few days later, the chain of litigation between the parties reached the doors of this Court, when the petitioner filed the present transfer petition before this Court, seeking the transfer of divorce petition bearing No.RCS(HM) No.1379 of 2022, titled Sandesh Sharda versus Rinku Baheti, pending before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, to the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Pune, Maharashtra. This court, vide order dated 09.02.2023, issued notice in the matter and granted interim stay on the aforesaid divorce proceedings pending before the Family Court.
    
6. During the pendency of the present transfer petition, the respondent has filed the interlocutory application bearing IA No. 149439/2023 before this Court under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage amidst the multiple litigations pending between the parties. The relief sought by the respondent is as follows:
   1. Allow the present application thereby exercising the powers conferred by Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India thereby dissolving the marriage of the parties and granting a decree of divorce; and/or
   2. Pass any such other and further order(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Most significantly and most remarkably, what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then laid bare in para 10 wherein it is postulated that, The provisions in the 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 of the complaints related to matrimonial disputes is a practice which has been condemned by this Court on several occasions.

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. Sometimes this is done in a fit of rage after a marital dispute, while at times it is a planned strategy in other cases. Unfortunately, it is not just the parties who are involved in this abuse of the process of law. They are understandably fuelled by the emotions of the situation. But other stakeholders also worsen the situation as they may often devise such crafty strategies for the women to adopt such arm-twisting tactics for their ulterior motives.

Further, the police personnel are sometimes quick to jump into action in selective cases and arrest the husband or even their relatives including aged and bedridden parents and grand-parents of the husband. The trial courts are hesitant in granting bail to the accused persons being swayed by the gravity of the offences mentioned in the FIR. The collective effect of this chain of events is often overlooked by the actual individual players involved therein, which is that even minor disputes between husband and wife tend to snowball into ugly prodigious battles of ego and reputation and washing dirty linen in public, eventually leading to the relationship turning sour to the extent that there remains no possibility of a reconciliation or cohabitation. The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands.

While citing a recent and relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 10.2 that:
This Court, had highlighted this growing problem of trivial quarrels between spouses turning into criminal complaints, in Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2024) 6 SCR 129, wherein it was observed by Pardiwala, J. as follows:

32. Many times, the parents including the close relatives of the wife make a mountain out of a mole. Instead of salvaging the situation and making all possible endeavours to save the marriage, their action either due to ignorance or on account of sheer hatred towards the husband and his family members, brings about complete destruction of marriage on trivial issues. The first thing that comes in the mind of the wife, her parents and her relatives is the Police, as if the Police is the panacea of all evil. No sooner the matter reaches up to the Police, then even if there are fair chances of reconciliation between the spouses, they would get destroyed. The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another.

Tolerance to each other's fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in the heaven. The Court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of the marriage. In matrimonial disputes the main sufferers are the children. The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, then what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned.

The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary. However, the Police machinery should be resorted to as a measure of last resort and that too in a very genuine case of cruelty and harassment.

The Police machinery cannot be utilised for the purpose of holding the husband at ransom so that he could be squeezed by the wife at the instigation of her parents or relatives or friends. In all cases, where wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, Section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without Sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty. (underlining by us).

Do note, the Bench notes in para 14.4 that:
In the instant case as well, the petitioner-wife has stated that the respondent-husband is a man of means with a net-worth of Rs.5,000 crores with multiple businesses and properties in USA and in India and that he had paid his first wife at least Rs.500 crores upon separation, excluding a house in Virginia, USA. Thus, she claims permanent alimony commensurate to the status of the respondent-husband and on the same principles as was paid to the first wife of the respondent. The respondent-husband on the other hand is willing to pay a reasonable amount to cover the difference in the income and expenditure of the petitioner-wife, which he feels should be in the range of Rs.20 to 40 lakhs as a one-time lump sum payment. Thus, there is a clear and significant divergence or mismatch between the offer and the desire.

While adding a caveat, the Bench propounds in para 14.5 stating that:
We have serious reservations with the tendency of parties seeking maintenance or alimony as an equalisation of wealth with the other party. It is often seen that parties in their application for maintenance or alimony highlight the assets, status and income of their spouse, and then ask for an amount that can equal their wealth to that of the spouse. However, there is an inconsistency in this practice, because the demands of equalisation are made only in cases where the spouse is a person of means or is doing well for himself.

But such demands are conspicuously absent in cases where the wealth of the spouse has decreased since the time of separation. There cannot be two different approaches to seeking and granting maintenance or alimony, depending on the status and income of the spouse. The law of maintenance is aimed at empowering the destitute and achieving social justice and dignity of the individual. The husband is under a legal obligation to sufficiently provide for his wife.

As per settled law, the wife is entitled to be maintained as far as possible in a manner that is similar to what she was accustomed to in her matrimonial home while the parties were together. But once the parties have separated, it cannot be expected of the husband to maintain her as per his present status all his life. If the husband has moved ahead and is fortunately doing better in life post his separation, then to ask him to always maintain the status of the wife as per his own changing status would be putting a burden on his own personal progress. We wonder, would the wife be willing to seek an equalisation of wealth with the husband if due to some unfortunate events post-separation, he has been rendered a pauper?

Notably, the Bench notes in para 14.6 that:
However, the law permits that if there is a continuing obligation on the husband post-separation, he may seek a reduction in the maintenance amount. Equally, a divorced wife, in the context of receiving monthly maintenance from a former husband can seek enhancement of the same owing to inflation or other circumstances which have adversely affected her status and position such as serious illness or loss of income from a particular source, etc.

It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 14.7 that:
But the petitioner-wife in the instant case has sought equalisation of status not just with the respondent-husband but also with the ex-wife of the respondent. In our opinion, this cannot be an acceptable approach. The fixation of alimony depends on various factors and there cannot be any straight-jacket formula for the same. Thus, the petitioner cannot simply claim an amount equal to what the ex-wife of the respondent had received or on the basis of the income of the respondent. The Court has to not just consider the income of the respondent-husband here, but also bear in mind other factors such as the income of the petitioner-wife, her reasonable needs, her residential rights, and other similar factors. Thus, her entitlement to maintenance has to be decided based on the factors applicable to her and not depend on what the respondent had paid to his ex-wife or solely on his income.

Quite significantly, the Bench holds in para 14.10 that:
We find that since the petitioner has let her flat and is receiving monthly rental income from the flat to the tune of Rs.27,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Seven Thousand only) and she also has interest income from fixed deposits, she is not economically impoverished as such. In the petition filed by the parties jointly seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent, respondent herein had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.8 crores towards full and final settlement of all claims of the petitioner. The Family Court at Pune has assessed Rs.10 crores as the quantum of permanent alimony that petitioner could be entitled to.

We accept the said finding of the Family Court, Pune. An additional amount of Rs.2 crores is liable to be paid to the petitioner so as to enable her to acquire another flat, in case she is interested in doing so, as we are directing the petitioner to vacate her father-in-law's flats which she is presently occupying in Pune as well as in Bhopal, if not already vacated. Thus, a total sum of Rs.12 crores is liable to be paid as permanent alimony to the petitioner by the respondent as a full and final settlement of all her claims on the respondent and his family. Further, the respondent and his family shall also not demand the return of any amounts that he or his family may have paid to the petitioner or any jewellery or other valuables that he or his family may have gifted to the petitioner.

Conclusion
Finally, the Bench then concludes by directing and holding in para 15 that:
In the result, we hold as under:

1. The application filed by the respondent-husband under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent is dissolved on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.
    
2. Consequently, the criminal cases and the consequential proceedings pending against respondent-husband, arising out of FIR No. 588 of 2022 dated 15.12.2022 before the Police Station Yerwada, District Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 376, 377, 420, 498A, 503, 506, 509 of the IPC and Sections 66 and 67 of the IT Act, 2000, filed by the petitioner herein, are hereby quashed.
    
3. Further, the criminal case and the proceedings arising out of FIR No. 586 of 2022 dated 12.12.2022 filed by the petitioner herein against Mr. Paresh Somani before the Police Station Yerwada, District Pune, for offences punishable under Sections 360, 427, 452, 454, and 457 of the IPC, shall also stand quashed.
    
4. The respondent shall pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores only) which shall be paid within a period of one month from today. An undertaking to that effect shall be filed before this Court within two weeks from today.
    
5. Litigation charges for the petitioner is quantified at Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) which shall be paid along with the payment of permanent alimony.
    
6. The petitioner shall vacate from the premises belonging to respondent's father at Pune and Bhopal, within two months from the date of receipt of the amount of permanent alimony from the respondent, as detailed hereunder:
   1. Flat No.C-1, Ivy Glen Marigold Complex, Kalyani Nagar, Pune (Maharashtra); and
   2. E-7/53, Arera SBI Colony, Bhopal (M.P.), if not already vacated.
   An undertaking shall be filed by the petitioner to the aforesaid effect within a period of two weeks from today.
    
7. In view of the above, the Transfer Petition stands disposed, along with pending application(s), if any.

In conclusion, it is high time and women must pay heed to what the Apex Court has held so clearly, cogently and convincingly in this leading case that women need to realise that beneficial laws aren't means to threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands. The earlier they realize, the better it shall be for them. It is high time and Centre must make false allegations against husband and his family punishable with not less than 7 years rigorous imprisonment so that this brazen misuse of women related laws by women and her relatives with impunity can be checked, combated and crushed and soon becomes a thing of the past! It is definitely a matter of deep regret that even in the new revised penal laws, we see nothing has been done on this score!

There can definitely be just no gainsaying that the repeated judgments by not only different High Courts in India but also by the Apex Court in case after case on misuse of laws by wife and her relatives underscores how urgent it has become to amend the laws suitably so that a permanent full stop is put to the most reprehensible misuse of penal laws without any more dilly dallying on this score so that the lives of innocent husbands and their relatives don't get ruined for just no fault of theirs!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh