मैरिटेक विवादों में आपराधिक कानून का दुरुपयोग: सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने चेतावनी दी

<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court </a>has cautioned that criminal law should not be used as an instrument of undue pressure to facilitate extortion or illegal enrichment, stressing that courts must protect the integrity of the criminal justice system from misuse in matrimonial disputes.</p><p>A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran deprecated the practice of initiating criminal proceedings on the pretext of marriage solely to extract settlements through coercion. </p><p>The court was hearing a plea by a 31-year-old woman challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment of December 2, 2025.</p><p>The woman had registered an FIR on January 12, 2024, alleging that the respondent, who offered help while she was attending to her hospitalised brother, became intimate with her and coerced her into sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage. She claimed she complied willingly on the strength of that promise, that his parents met her and a ceremony of sorts was held, and that she was later abandoned.</p>.Supreme Court can grant divorce by mutual consent even if statutory waiting period not over: Apex court.<p>A settlement was subsequently reached under which the respondent agreed to pay Rs 9.25 lakh, of which Rs 4.50 lakh was paid.</p><p>The High Court found the allegations prima facie mala fide, noting that the petitioner was a mature woman fully conscious of her actions. </p><p>By invoking the criminal process on the basis of sexual harassment claims tied to a promise of marriage and then settling the matter, she had undermined the sanctity of the legal process, the High Court held. </p><p>It set aside the settlement and made the balance amount unenforceable, directed that mutual consent <a href="https://deccanherald.com/tags/divorce">divorce proceedings </a>under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act continue (with the warning that any resiling from consent could attract perjury proceedings), and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner, to be paid to institutions working for women and poor patients.</p><p>Upholding the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court in its order on September 28, 2026, said, “We are of the opinion the High Court’s order is perfectly in order, especially considering the manner in which allegations are made of molestation and sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage, which are then later settled, by the sheer coercion exerted on such criminal proceedings being initiated and continued.”</p><p>The bench agreed that such practices must be deprecated in the strongest terms. </p><p>It, however, modified the High Court order by deleting the Rs 5-lakh penalty while cautioning the petitioner against similar conduct in future. </p><p>The court confirmed that the settlement was unenforceable against the respondent for the unpaid amount.</p><p>Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court granted divorce to the parties, finding an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage on the facts of the case.</p>

<p>New Delhi: The <a href="https://deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court </a>has cautioned that criminal law should not be used as an instrument of undue pressure to facilitate extortion or illegal enrichment, stressing that courts must protect the integrity of the criminal justice system from misuse in matrimonial disputes.</p><p>A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran deprecated the practice of initiating criminal proceedings on the pretext of marriage solely to extract settlements through coercion. </p><p>The court was hearing a plea by a 31-year-old woman challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment of December 2, 2025.</p><p>The woman had registered an FIR on January 12, 2024, alleging that the respondent, who offered help while she was attending to her hospitalised brother, became intimate with her and coerced her into sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage. She claimed she complied willingly on the strength of that promise, that his parents met her and a ceremony of sorts was held, and that she was later abandoned.</p>.Supreme Court can grant divorce by mutual consent even if statutory waiting period not over: Apex court.<p>A settlement was subsequently reached under which the respondent agreed to pay Rs 9.25 lakh, of which Rs 4.50 lakh was paid.</p><p>The High Court found the allegations prima facie mala fide, noting that the petitioner was a mature woman fully conscious of her actions. </p><p>By invoking the criminal process on the basis of sexual harassment claims tied to a promise of marriage and then settling the matter, she had undermined the sanctity of the legal process, the High Court held. </p><p>It set aside the settlement and made the balance amount unenforceable, directed that mutual consent <a href="https://deccanherald.com/tags/divorce">divorce proceedings </a>under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act continue (with the warning that any resiling from consent could attract perjury proceedings), and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 5 lakh on the petitioner, to be paid to institutions working for women and poor patients.</p><p>Upholding the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court in its order on September 28, 2026, said, “We are of the opinion the High Court’s order is perfectly in order, especially considering the manner in which allegations are made of molestation and sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage, which are then later settled, by the sheer coercion exerted on such criminal proceedings being initiated and continued.”</p><p>The bench agreed that such practices must be deprecated in the strongest terms. </p><p>It, however, modified the High Court order by deleting the Rs 5-lakh penalty while cautioning the petitioner against similar conduct in future. </p><p>The court confirmed that the settlement was unenforceable against the respondent for the unpaid amount.</p><p>Invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court granted divorce to the parties, finding an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage on the facts of the case.</p>

Powered by Nyaya 247 News