The Madhya Pradesh High Court has levied a penalty of ₹1 lakh on a woman for misusing the court process. Despite reaching a settlement and obtaining a divorce decree by mutual consent, she persisted in pursuing a case against her husband and his family, leading to this ruling.
Justice Subodh Abhyankar emphasized the necessity of imposing costs to prevent dishonest litigants from exploiting the court system for their own advantage.
"The cost of Rs.1 lakh has been so imposed only to caution the unscrupulous litigants that they cannot take the Courts for a ride which are meant for serious litigation, and the valuable time of the Courts cannot be allowed to be wasted by them in any manner," the Court said.
In directing the woman to pay the costs, the Court mentioned that she had previously received a settlement amount of ₹50 lakh from her former husband.
The man and his family members lodged two distinct petitions: one aimed at nullifying a First Information Report (FIR) filed in 2018 based on the woman's complaint, and another seeking a criminal revision petition against the charges leveled against them by the trial court in the same case.
The charges brought against them under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) included causing miscarriage without consent, cruelty, and other offenses. The petitioners' complaint was that despite the issuance of the divorce decree, the woman persisted in pursuing the case against them.
The woman contended that although she agreed to withdraw all the cases she initiated against the petitioners, the case under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for non-consensual miscarriage could not be withdrawn because it falls under the category of non-compoundable offenses.
The Court granted approval for both pleas, observing that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the husband despite reaching a compromise was disapproved by the apex court as a misuse of the legal process. Regarding the allegation against the husband and his elderly parents under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Court noted:
considering the fact that the respondent No. 2 (wife) got her Medical Termination of Pregnancy way back in the year 2009, it is difficult for this Court to perceive that the aforesaid termination of pregnancy through legal procedure, from a reputed hospital can be stretched to the extent to wrap it as an offence of causing miscarriage without the respondent No.2’s consent falling under Section 313 of IPC and that too after a period of around 12 years."
Regarding the accusations of cruelty and other purported offenses, the Court remarked that these were broad, general allegations.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy