The Bombay High Court ruled that a wife’s withdrawal of consent for mutual divorce cannot be deemed an abuse of legal process to justify quashing criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that the statutory framework of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) permits a party to reconsider their decision at any stage before the final divorce decree.
The judgment was pronounced in Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Criminal Writ Petition No. 2638 of 2022) by a division bench comprising Justice A. S. Gadkari and Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale.
Case Background
The petitioner sought the quashing of criminal charges, including allegations of cruelty and dowry harassment under Sections 498-A and 406 of the IPC, filed by his wife, the respondent. The charges stemmed from their tumultuous marriage, which began in 2015 and involved allegations of abuse, dowry demands, and harassment.
In 2022, both parties initiated divorce proceedings under Section 13B(1) of the HMA through a mutual consent motion. They signed a settlement agreement that included monetary payments and the transfer of property to the respondent-wife. However, before the second motion under Section 13B(2) could be filed, the wife withdrew her consent, alleging coercion and non-compliance with the agreed terms by her husband.
The petitioner argued that the wife’s withdrawal was a violation of the settlement and constituted contempt, previously upheld by the Delhi High Court in related proceedings. He also claimed that the criminal proceedings were retaliatory and an abuse of legal process.
Key Legal Issues
- Withdrawal of Consent in Mutual Divorce: Can a spouse’s decision to withdraw consent for mutual divorce be treated as an abuse of the process of law?
- Impact of Settlement Violations: Does a party’s non-compliance with settlement terms justify quashing related criminal proceedings?
- Merits of Criminal Charges: Should allegations of cruelty and harassment be set aside based on settlement agreements in unrelated proceedings?
Court’s Observations
The bench reaffirmed the statutory right of any party under Section 13B(2) of the HMA to withdraw consent for mutual divorce before the final decree. Citing the landmark Supreme Court decision in Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash (1991), the court clarified that mutual consent must persist throughout the proceedings for a decree to be granted. The bench noted:
“The cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) reflects the legislature’s intent to allow parties to reconsider their decision. Withdrawal of consent is a statutory right, not an abuse of process.”
The court further observed that the settlement agreement was contingent on compliance by both parties. Since the petitioner had failed to transfer property and settle dues as agreed, the wife’s refusal to proceed with the divorce was justified. It ruled that the wife’s conduct did not negate her right to pursue criminal charges.
Decision
Dismissing the petitioner’s plea, the court concluded:
- The wife’s withdrawal of consent was within her rights under the HMA and could not be deemed an abuse of process.
- Allegations of cruelty and harassment in the criminal proceedings warranted examination during trial and could not be quashed preemptively.
The interim stay on proceedings before the trial court was vacated, and the petition was dismissed.
