The Supreme Court offered guidance akin to that of a counselor, emphasizing the importance of tolerance and respect as the bedrock of a healthy marriage. Further, the Court said that small arguments shouldn't turn into big problems.

The court made these comments while cancelling a case where a woman accused her husband of harassing her for dowry.

“The foundation of a sound marriage is tolerance, adjustment and respecting one another. Tolerance to each other’s fault to a certain bearable extent has to be inherent in every marriage. Petty quibbles, trifling differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated and blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to have been made in heaven,” the apex court said.

The court's remarks were part of a judgment that overturned a decision by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had rejected a husband's request to cancel a criminal case filed against him.

The court emphasized that often, the parents and close relatives of a married woman exaggerate small problems, causing more harm than good. Instead of trying to resolve issues and preserve the marriage, their actions can lead to the complete breakdown of marital relationships over insignificant matters.

A panel of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra remarked that often, when a woman and her family face problems in the marriage, their immediate reaction is to involve the police, as if the police can solve everything. However, once the police are involved, even if there's a chance for the couple to reconcile, it becomes much harder, and the situation can worsen.

“The court must appreciate that all quarrels must be weighed from that point of view in determining what constitutes cruelty in each particular case, always keeping in view the physical and mental conditions of the parties, their character and social status. A very technical and hyper-sensitive approach would prove to be disastrous for the very institution of marriage,” the bench said.

The court highlighted that in disputes between married couples, it's the children who suffer the most.

“The spouses fight with such venom in their heart that they do not think even for a second that if the marriage would come to an end, what will be the effect on their children. Divorce plays a very dubious role so far as the upbringing of the children is concerned.

“The only reason why we are saying so is that instead of handling the whole issue delicately, the initiation of criminal proceedings would bring about nothing but hatred for each other. There may be cases of genuine ill-treatment and harassment by the husband and his family members towards the wife. The degree of such ill-treatment or harassment may vary,” the bench said.

The court emphasized that involving the police should be seen as a last resort in marital conflicts. It stated that the police should not be used to pressure the husband into compliance with the wife's demands, which might be influenced by her parents, relatives, or friends.

“In all cases, where the wife complains of harassment or ill-treatment, section 498A of the IPC cannot be applied mechanically. No FIR is complete without sections 506(2) and 323 of the IPC. Every matrimonial conduct, which may cause annoyance to the other, may not amount to cruelty. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels between spouses, which happen in day-to-day married life, may also not amount to cruelty,” it said.

As per the First Information Report (FIR) filed by his wife, the man and his relatives purportedly demanded dowry and subjected her to mental and physical distress. The FIR mentioned that the woman's family had spent a considerable amount during her wedding and had also given her "stridhan" to the husband and his family.

Shortly after the wedding, the husband and his family reportedly began harassing her, falsely accusing her of not fulfilling her responsibilities as a wife and daughter-in-law, and demanding more dowry. The bench noted that upon reviewing the FIR and chargesheet, it found that the allegations made by the woman were vague, general, and sweeping, lacking specific instances of criminal behavior.

“It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR, no specific date or time of the alleged offence or offences has been disclosed. Even the police thought fit to drop the proceedings against the other members of the appellant’s (husband) family. Thus, we are of the view that the FIR lodged by the respondent no. 2 (woman) was nothing but a counterblast to the divorce petition and also, the domestic violence case,” the bench said.

“For the foregoing reasons, we have reached the conclusion that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the appellant, the same will be nothing short of an abuse of the process of law and travesty of justice,” it added.