The Bombay High Court recently held that merely telling a woman that if she fails to bring the amount demanded by her husband or in-laws, from her parental house, she would not be allowed to cohabit with her husband, will not amount to mental or physical harassment.

 A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi noted that the wife in her First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the husband and her in-laws, had stated that they had asked her to bring Rs 5 lakh from her parents’ house so that the husband can pay the same for getting a permanent job in public service. She however, stated that her parents are poor and thus, would not be in a position to pay the said amount.

The bench pointed out that the wife in the instant case, failed to properly bring on record, the exact dates as to when such demands were made, and as to how much period did such demands persist. The judges said that the wife only made vague allegations as she did not point out as to how she was subjected to cruelty or maltreatment. 

Further, the judges voiced their concern over the manner in which the police investigates such cases. The judges noted that most of the statements recorded by the police were of the relatives of the complainant woman and were just ‘copy paste’ and nothing else.

Further, the judges said that it is not necessary that the police must file its charge-sheet against all those persons who are named in the FIR as well as statements of witnesses. “If those accused are residing at far away place, then how that accused would have been involved in the commission of the offence should be considered by the investigating officer.

 It is in the wisdom of the investigating officer to file charge-sheet against those accused only against whom there is strong evidence. Unnecessary harassment and false implication should be avoided,” the bench remarked.

 These observations were made after the bench noted that the persons named in the FIR in the instant case, were the husband, his parents, his brother, his married sister and her husband and also one of the husband’s cousin.

 The bench, therefore, quashed the FIR.

Case Title: MM vs State of Maharashtra