The
SC bench noted the spurt in matrimonial disputes in recent times and
said every effort must be made to save marriages, if warring spouses at a
later stage agreed to compromise and live together.
NEW DELHI: Cases filed by women
against in-laws for harassment and cruelty under Section 498A of Indian
Penal Code, which under law could not be compounded, can now be quashed
if the spouses kiss and make up and resume conjugal relations, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday.
After a two-judge bench recently mooted the idea of compounding offences under Section 498A, a three-judge bench of Justices P Sathasivam, J S Khehar and Kurian Joseph on Friday gave legal sanctity to the proposition and said it was necessary to save the institution of marriage which occupied an important place in society.
The bench noted the spurt in matrimonial disputes in recent times and said every effort must be made to save marriages, if warring spouses at a later stage agreed to compromise and live together.
Justice Sathasivam, writing the judgment for the bench, said, "Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their faults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction."
The bench said though it was settled judicial practice that high courts exercise their revision power sparingly and with circumspection, they would be required to exercise this power to quash cases under Section 498A when they were convinced on the basis of material on record, that allowing proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court or that the ends of justice required quashing of the proceedings.
"We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist," the three-judge bench said.
It was the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the revision powers vested with high courts and the Supreme Court enabled them to pass orders quashing Section 498A cases where appropriate, the bench said and ended the matrimonial dispute between Jitendra Raghuvanshi and his wife Babita by quashing the case against the husband on the basis of the compromise reached between the spouses.
After a two-judge bench recently mooted the idea of compounding offences under Section 498A, a three-judge bench of Justices P Sathasivam, J S Khehar and Kurian Joseph on Friday gave legal sanctity to the proposition and said it was necessary to save the institution of marriage which occupied an important place in society.
The bench noted the spurt in matrimonial disputes in recent times and said every effort must be made to save marriages, if warring spouses at a later stage agreed to compromise and live together.
Justice Sathasivam, writing the judgment for the bench, said, "Therefore, every effort should be made in the interest of the individuals in order to enable them to settle down in life and live peacefully. If the parties ponder over their faults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting out in a court of law, in order to do complete justice in matrimonial matters, the courts should be less hesitant in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction."
The bench said though it was settled judicial practice that high courts exercise their revision power sparingly and with circumspection, they would be required to exercise this power to quash cases under Section 498A when they were convinced on the basis of material on record, that allowing proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of the court or that the ends of justice required quashing of the proceedings.
"We also make it clear that exercise of such power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it has to be exercised in appropriate cases in order to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone the courts exist," the three-judge bench said.
It was the duty of the courts to encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes and the revision powers vested with high courts and the Supreme Court enabled them to pass orders quashing Section 498A cases where appropriate, the bench said and ended the matrimonial dispute between Jitendra Raghuvanshi and his wife Babita by quashing the case against the husband on the basis of the compromise reached between the spouses.
No comments:
Post a Comment