Gujarat High Court: In a landmark judgment, the Gujarat High Court quashed a dowry harassment complaint filed by a wife against her husband and his family. High Court Justice Divyesh A. Joshi said, ‘Endurance should be the foundation of married life. But often in such cases, it has been seen that the wife’s family makes a mountain of rice.’

Know what the whole thing is:
High Court Justice Divyesh A. Joshi observed that, ‘instead of making all possible efforts to improve the deteriorating situation of marriage and save it, their actions, due to ignorance or intense hatred towards the husband and his family members, end the marriage completely in trivial matters. The wife’s parents and relatives are often the first responders to contact the police. They think that the police is the panacea for all their problems. But when the police gets involved in a problem like this, it can give reasonable chances of reconciliation between the two spouses.”Justice Divyesh A. Joshi said, ‘The foundation of a pure married life is tolerance, compromise and mutual respect. A certain degree of tolerance of each other’s faults must be inherent in every marriage. Petty talks, petty differences are mundane matters and should not be exaggerated. Bubbles should not be blown out of proportion to destroy what is said to be made in heaven. If the court is satisfied that the woman has implicated the husband and his close relatives with malicious intent, then the FIR or charge sheet discloses a cognizable offence. But the Court must read the malicious intent into Between the Lines substantially in the interests and take a pragmatic view of the matter. It is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court if a person has to face a criminal trial on some general and broad charge without bringing any matters of criminal conduct. It is the duty of the court to thoroughly examine the allegations made in the complaint prima facie and whether there is truth in the allegations..? and find out whether it is done with the sole intention of implicating certain persons. Especially when such action takes place in a matrimonial dispute. Taking a serious note of the allegations of the FIR, the High Court said, “In this case, the matrimonial dispute appears to be between husband and wife and as always, all the members of the husband’s family have been included as accused. This complaint filed by the wife after investigation of the complete facts is nothing more. But there is a clear abuse of the legal process. Which, if allowed to continue, would be tantamount to its abuse of legal process and miscarriage of justice to its relatives. With these important observations, the High Court quashed the FIR and ancillary proceedings registered against the husband and his relatives and allowed the petition of the husband and his relatives.’