Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati of the Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR against the in-law in an alleged dowry harassment case. The Court relied on Hari Ram Sharma's case where it was observed that "it is very common to implicate immediate relations of the husband in dowry, matrimonial cases." Justice Bhati opined that the case is over-implication as the parents (in-laws_ ordinarily did not reside with the couple. 

The Court said, "If the estranged couple was not living with the in-law, the focus of allegations should be on the husband only and not other family members".

BACKGROUND

The couple moved to Bangkok after marriage and visited her in-laws from time to time. In 2019, a few months before registering FIR, the wife invited her in-laws to Bangkok. 

After reading their WhatsApp conversations, the Court observed that the allegations against the in-laws only cropped up after there was matrimonial disharmony between the couple. 

The Judge noted that the allegations made by the wife, such as the in-laws demanding dowry and induced her to marry on wrongful facts, were vague and sporadic since no such incident was mentioned in the FIR.

HELD

The allegations against the old aged in-laws are an expansion of matrimonial dispute and a motive to exert pressure. Even if the complaint was taken at face value, it indicates that the complainant never resided with their in-laws. Hence, prima facie, the allegations stood primarily against the husband and not the ill in-laws. Though the allegations mentioned in the FIR against the husband may be honest, against the petitioners in-laws are pure abuse of law. 

Author: Papiha Ghoshal