Relatives of a husband cannot be implicated in domestic violence cases without specific allegations, preventing over-implication and abuse of legal process.

JUDGMENT :

1. It is stated that the petitioner is a resident of Ludhiana and happens to be the maternal uncle of the husband (residing in United Kingdom) of respondent No. 2. The marriage between Kunwar Sood and respondent No. 2 was solemnized in the month November 2019. For one reason or the other, the marriage between respondent No. 2 and her husband failed. In order to settle the dispute between respondent No. 2 and her husband, the petitioner participated in the reconciliation meeting that took place in the month of July 2023 in U.K. He claims to have tried to persuade the couple to live together but after failure of the reconciliation, the couple opted to part their ways. The husband of respondent No. 2 filed a divorce petition before HM Courts and Tribunal Services, Harlow. After the response was filed by respondent No. 2 to the divorce petition, the Court at Harlow passed a conditional order dated 15.01.2024 declaring marriage between the parties broken down irretrievably. Thereafter, the final order in respect of the divorce between the couple was passed. It is urged by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 participated in the whole proceedings before the Court at Harlow and she did not make any complaint with regard to the conduct of the petitioner, his sister, brother- in-law or nephew and the divorce proceedings culminated in the divorce smoothly.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 has got the FIR No.0112/2024 dated 06.06.2024 registered with Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu under Sections 498-A and 420 IPC against the petitioner concealing the factum of divorce from respondent No. 1 and a bare perusal of the complaint would reveal that if the allegations leveled in the complaint are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, no prudent person can arrive at the conclusion that any offence is made out against the petitioner. It has also been urged that the Hon’ble Apex Court has time and again reiterated that the close relatives of the husband are often implicated without any rhyme or reason, and this case is a classic example of what the Hon’ble Apex Court is observing time and again.

3. Respondent No. 2 has filed the response, stating therein that during subsistence of the marriage between the respondent No. 2 and her husband and while the respondent No.2 was living with her in-laws, she was subjected to torture, cruelty and harassment continuously by the accused persons. There are many instances when the petitioner had directly provoked the in-laws of the respondent No. 2 being the maternal uncle of her husband, which resulted in the acts of cruelty, humiliation, dowry demands, besides other acts on the parts of the petitioner, her husband and in-laws conjointly. One such incident is in respect of illegal withholding and retention of jewelry/stridhan belonging to respondent No. 2, which at the behest of the petitioner was denied. It was only due to the consistent persuasion by respondent No. 2 and her family members that the accused persons including the petitioner, agreed to return the gold and diamond ornaments of the respondent No. 2 but continues to be retained by them. The conspiracy hatched by her in-laws, husband and petitioner is self-explanatory and a triable offence. The list of jewelry items of respondent No. 2 as shared and agreed to be returned by way of an e-mail, establishes the fact that the same are of high value and is retained with an intent to misappropriate the same. Further, the petitioner was/is a nominated person of the other accused persons for returning the valuable jewelry/stridhan and other items, as agreed in the e-mail but the same has not been returned till date by the petitioner and has cheated respondent No. 2. It is stated that on 09.01.2023, the respondent No. 2 travelled from United Kingdom to India to undergo IVF treatment at the insistence of sister of the petitioner due to lower costs in India and during that time, she stayed at her p