The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal while hearing a petition challenging the proceedings pending before the JMFC court in Surajpur. The petition was filed by Prakash Singh, a resident of Ballia in Uttar Pradesh, along with his two sisters.
The court observed that judicial mechanisms are meant to deliver justice, not to be used as instruments of coercion or personal vendetta. It noted that if a Domestic Incident Report (DIR) lacks specific facts and is used to gain leverage in matrimonial disputes or child custody matters, such proceedings amount to misuse of the law.
According to the petitioners, the dispute arose after the wife expressed her desire to give their elder son in adoption to her childless sister, a proposal that was opposed by the husband. Following this disagreement, the wife allegedly left the matrimonial home and initiated multiple legal proceedings in different courts against the husband and his family members to exert pressure.
The husband argued before the court that the domestic violence case was filed solely to secure custody of the children and to harass him and his relatives. On the other hand, the wife alleged that she had faced dowry demands along with physical and mental cruelty after marriage. She also claimed that she was prevented from meeting and caring for her children and that the elder son was forcibly taken away by the husband, leaving her with no option but to approach the court under the Domestic Violence Act.
Upon examining the records, the High Court found that the Domestic Incident Report prepared on October 19, 2022, failed to mention any specific incident of domestic violence. The report did not clearly state when, where, or by whom the alleged acts of cruelty were committed. The court emphasized that vague allegations such as “dowry demand” or “mental harassment” without supporting details cannot form the basis of serious criminal proceedings.
The Bench also underlined the statutory responsibility of the Protection Officer to ensure that all material facts are accurately recorded in the DIR, including details of the alleged violence, identity of the accused, nature of cruelty, and any existing litigation between the parties. Failure to do so, the court said, weakens the entire legal process.
In view of these findings, the High Court set aside the order of the lower court and quashed the proceedings, reiterating that the Domestic Violence Act must serve its intended purpose of protection, not become a means of legal intimidation.
.jpg)
