The Delhi High Court has quashed a criminal case and domestic violence proceedings filed by a woman against her former husband and his family, observing that the allegations were vague and did not disclose the ingredients of cruelty or criminal breach of trust.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the legal process, especially since the couple’s marriage had already been dissolved by a valid divorce decree before the complaints were filed.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from the marriage between Sandeep Pathak and Lalita Tiwari, solemnised in January 2005 in Uttarakhand according to Hindu customs. Soon after the wedding, differences surfaced between the couple regarding their place of residence.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Himachal HC Order Quashing FIR in Alleged Property Grab Case
According to the husband’s family, the wife was unwilling to live in Ranikhet and preferred staying in Delhi with her parents. The couple eventually began living separately.
In July 2011, the husband filed a divorce petition before a court in Almora. The wife did not appear in the proceedings, and the court granted an ex parte divorce decree on 5 September 2012, which remained unchallenged.
Several months later, the wife initiated legal proceedings in Delhi. She filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and also lodged an FIR in June 2013 alleging cruelty, dowry harassment, and misappropriation of her jewellery by the husband and his relatives.
The husband and his family approached the High Court seeking quashing of:
- FIR No. 252/2013 registered under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
- Domestic Violence complaint case filed in Rohini Courts.
Read also:- Allahabad HC Restores Suit in Husband-Wife Property Dispute, Sends Case to Family Court
They argued that the allegations were fabricated, vague, and filed after the divorce only to harass them.
The High Court closely examined the allegations of cruelty made by the complainant.
The court noted that the complaint contained broad accusations against multiple family members without specifying dates, incidents, or individual acts.
“The allegations are generic, omnibus and vague. Even if taken at face value, they do not disclose the essential ingredients of cruelty under Section 498A IPC,” the court observed.
Justice Krishna pointed out that the complainant had stayed in the matrimonial home only briefly after marriage and thereafter lived mainly with her parents in Delhi.
The court held that the allegations largely reflected ordinary marital discord and adjustment issues, rather than criminal cruelty.
The complainant had also alleged that her jewellery and other belongings were illegally retained by the husband’s family.
Read also:- Bangalore Hotels Association Moves Karnataka HC Over Halt in Commercial LPG Supply
However, the court found that the complaint did not provide details such as:
- the items allegedly entrusted,
- who received them,
- when they were demanded back, or
- how they were misappropriated.
Without such particulars, the court held that the basic ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC were not established.
The court also examined the maintainability of the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.
It observed that the marriage had already been dissolved by the decree of divorce dated 5 September 2012, which had attained finality.
“Once the domestic relationship between the parties ceased to exist, the foundational requirement for invoking the provisions of the DV Act does not survive,” the court said.
The judge also noted that the domestic violence complaint and the FIR were filed only after the divorce decree, suggesting an attempt to revive matrimonial disputes through criminal litigation.
Concluding that the allegations failed to disclose any prima facie offence and that the proceedings were an abuse of the legal process, the High Court allowed the petitions.
The court quashed FIR No. 252/2013 under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 IPC and the domestic violence complaint case pending before the trial court, along with all related proceedings.
Case Title: Sandeep Pathak & Ors. v. Lalita Tiwari & Ors.
Case Numbers: CRL.M.C. 297/2021 & CRL.M.C. 485/2021
Decision Date: 10 March 2026
