Matrimonial disputes should be resolved amicably, recognizing their private nature and the consequences of baseless allegations.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 28-01-2026 Heard Mrs. Jyoti Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Ghanshyampur P.S. Case No. 116 of 2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act .

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the marriage of the informant/O.P. No. 2 was solemnized to the petitioner on 30.05.2010. After few years of marriage, petitioner along with his family members, had started torturing the complainant due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry and had ousted her from her matrimonial house.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that considering the nature of allegation alleged against the petitioner, who is husband of the O.P. No. 2, an attempt was made to settle their matrimonial dispute outside the Court by way of mediation, however, the mediation was failed because the O.P. No. 2 didn't attend the proceeding of mediation leading to filing of the present application for grant of pre-arrest bail after refusal by the learned District Court. Learned counsel further submitted that marriage is a sacred ceremony but little matrimonial skirmish suddenly erupts into hatred and the parties ponder to reconcile their dispute outside the court.

5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State submitted that one more chance be given to the parties for amicable settlement outside the court.

6. However, at this stage, the petitioner’s counsel, on instruction, submitted that the petitioner has agreed to appear before the learned District Court at 10:30 A.M. on 17.02.2026 for resolving the dispute by way of mediation.

7. Heard the parties.

8. The matrimonial dispute is not an offense against the society rather a matrimonial dispute is a private conflict between spouses and does not inherently constitute an offence against society. However, a false case can have a disastrous consequence in absence of any criminal content. The personal dispute cannot call for a criminal offence. In such situation, continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of process of law leading to vexatious proceeding against the petitioner.

9. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case of B.S.

Joshi v. State of Haryana, reported in, (2003) 4 SCC 675 , in paragraph nos. 12 and 13 has held as under:- “12. The special features in such matrimonial matters are evident. It becomes the duty of the court to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes.

13. The observations made by this Court, though in a slightly different context, in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [ (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] are very apt for determining the approach required to be kept in view in a matrimonial dispute by the courts. It was said that there has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years