#section 498a

Atul Subhash, Judge Aman Kumar Sharma and Twisha Sharma all died in disturbing matrimonial circumstances. Why does India react differently when the deceased is male?

NEW DELHI: India cannot claim to be a constitutional republic if the value of a human life changes with gender.

Atul Subhash died by suicide on 9 December 2024. Before his death, he left behind a long note and video alleging harassment, false cases, extortionate demands and denial of access to his child. His wife and in-laws were arrested in the abetment case and later granted bail.

Judge Aman Kumar Sharma, a 30-year-old judicial officer, died by suicide in Delhi in May 2026. His family alleged harassment by his wife, also a judicial officer, and interference by his sister-in-law, an IAS officer. Police registered a case under Section 108 BNS for abetment of suicide and Section 61 BNS for criminal conspiracy.

Then came the death of Twisha Sharma in May 2026. Her husband, Advocate Samarth Singh, and family members came under immediate public and institutional scrutiny. An FIR was registered under BNS Section 80(2) for dowry death, Section 85 for cruelty, Section 3(5) for common intention, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Bar Council of India suspended Samarth Singh from legal practice even while the case remained at the stage of allegations and investigation.

The question is not whether Twisha Sharma deserves justice. She absolutely does.

The question is:

Why did Atul Subhash and Judge Aman Kumar Sharma not receive the same national urgency?

THE UNEQUAL PUBLIC REACTION

When a woman dies in her matrimonial home, the system moves quickly. FIRs are registered. Arrests are demanded. Careers are damaged. Families are socially convicted. Media frames the husband and in-laws not merely as accused, but almost as already guilty.

But when a man dies after alleging matrimonial torture, financial extortion, false cases, denial of child access, harassment by wife and in-laws, or pressure from powerful relatives, the public response is colder.

Atul Subhash was not just another statistic. He spoke before dying. He documented his pain. He named people. He described the legal process itself as part of his suffering.

Judge Aman Kumar Sharma was not an ordinary litigant. He was part of the judiciary. Yet even his death did not create the kind of sustained national outrage that follows many female victim cases.

This selective outrage is not justice. It is prejudice dressed as sensitivity.

WHAT INDIAN LAW ACTUALLY SAYS

Under Indian criminal law, suicide by itself does not automatically prove abetment.

Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponds to the earlier offence under Section 306 IPC. For abetment of suicide, the prosecution must prove instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that mere harassment is not enough unless there is a clear, proximate and active link between the accused conduct and the suicide.

That principle must apply to everyone.

If a wife is accused of driving a husband to suicide, she is entitled to due process.

If a husband is accused after the wife’s death, he is also entitled to due process.

Gender cannot replace evidence.

DOWRY DEATH LAW AND THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST HUSBAND’S FAMILY

In cases like Twisha Sharma’s, BNS Section 80 on dowry death becomes important. It applies where a woman dies under abnormal circumstances within seven years of marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry.

The law creates a serious presumption once foundational facts are shown. That is why dowry death cases are treated with gravity.

But gravity is not guilt.

An FIR is not conviction. Arrest is not conviction. Suspension is not conviction. Media trial is not conviction.

The same country that remembers “innocent until proven guilty” for some accused must not forget it when the accused is a husband.

THE ATUL SUBHASH CASE: A MAN WHO SPOKE BEFORE DYING

Atul Subhash’s case shook many men because he said what thousands silently feel: that matrimonial litigation can become punishment before trial.

His allegations included financial pressure, multiple cases, denial of meaningful access to his child, and demands for settlement money. Whether each allegation is ultimately proved is for the court to decide.

But one fact cannot be ignored: he died before he got justice.

There was outrage, yes. But did it translate into institutional reform? Did it lead to gender-neutral domestic violence laws? Did it force serious debate on false cases, child access, maintenance litigation and misuse of criminal process?

No.

THE JUDGE AMAN KUMAR SHARMA CASE: IF EVEN A JUDGE COULD BREAK, WHAT ABOUT ORDINARY MEN?

Aman Kumar Sharma’s death should have forced India to pause.

Here was a judicial officer, legally trained, institutionally placed, and familiar with the court system. His family alleged harassment by his wife and interference by an influential IAS sister-in-law. Police registered an abetment and conspiracy case.

If even a judge allegedly felt helpless inside a matrimonial conflict, what happens to an ordinary man with no legal training, no social power, no media access and no institutional backing?

This case deserved national debate.

It did not get enough.

THE TWISHA SHARMA CASE: JUSTICE IS NECESSARY, BUT MEDIA CONVICTION IS DANGEROUS

Twisha Sharma’s death is tragic. Her family deserves a fair investigation. If dowry harassment, cruelty or abetment is proved, the guilty must face the full force of law.

But the concern is the speed at which the husband and family were publicly treated as guilty.

The husband’s bar licence was suspended at the allegation stage. News coverage repeatedly described serious accusations before trial. Public opinion moved faster than evidence.

This is exactly what many men face: once accused, they are not treated as accused; they are treated as convicted.

That is not rule of law.

THE REAL QUESTION: WHY NOT EQUAL OUTRAGE?

Why was Atul’s 24-page note not enough to create sustained reform?

Why did Aman’s death not trigger nationwide judicial introspection?

Why does society understand matrimonial cruelty only when the deceased is a woman?

Why does a man’s suicide become “mental health”, but a woman’s suicide becomes “crime” before trial?

Why is a husband immediately answerable, but a wife accused in a husband’s suicide is treated with caution, sympathy and delay?

These are uncomfortable questions. But justice begins exactly where selective comfort ends.

MY STAND

Twisha Sharma deserves justice.

Atul Subhash deserves justice.

Judge Aman Kumar Sharma deserves justice.

The families of all three deserve a fair investigation, not selective outrage.

No accused should be declared guilty by television studios, social media mobs, professional bodies or public sentiment before trial.

But no male victim should be erased merely because his pain does not fit the popular narrative.

Justice cannot be gender-specific.

Law cannot be outrage-driven.

And society cannot demand due process only when it likes the accused.

LEGAL TAKEAWAY

Indian law requires evidence, proximity, mens rea and due process.

For abetment of suicide, there must be active instigation or intentional aid.

For dowry death, statutory presumptions may arise, but only after legal conditions are met.

For arrests, the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar cautioned against automatic arrests in offences punishable up to seven years.

For bail and liberty, Satender Kumar Antil reaffirmed that arrest is not meant to be punitive.

The courtroom standard is evidence.

The media standard should not be gender.

CONCLUSION

Atul Subhash died before Twisha Sharma.

Judge Aman Kumar Sharma also died before Twisha Sharma.

Both were men. Both deaths involved allegations of matrimonial harassment. One case also involved allegations against an influential IAS sister-in-law.

Yet the outrage was not equal.

That is the problem.

A civilised society does not ask whether the dead person was male or female before demanding justice.

It asks only one question:

Was a human being pushed to death, and will the truth be found without bias?

Until India asks that question equally, justice will remain selective.

FAQs

1. What is the Atul Subhash suicide case?

Atul Subhash was a Bengaluru techie who died by suicide in December 2024 after alleging matrimonial harassment, false cases and financial pressure.

2. Who was Judge Aman Kumar Sharma?

Aman Kumar Sharma was a Delhi judicial officer who died by suicide in May 2026. His family alleged harassment by his wife and interference by his IAS sister-in-law.

3. What is the Twisha Sharma death case?

Twisha Sharma was found dead at her matrimonial home in Bhopal in May 2026. Her husband and family members face allegations under dowry death and cruelty provisions.

4. Does suicide automatically prove abetment?

No. Indian courts require proof of instigation, intentional aid, mens rea and a proximate link between the accused conduct and the suicide.

5. Should men and women get equal outrage and justice?

Section 41A CrPC, now Section 35(3) BNSS, protects accused persons from automatic arrest in offences punishable up to 7 years. Know the law, Supreme Court rulings, and men’s rights safeguards.

NEW DELHI: Section 41A of the CrPC was one of the most important protections against automatic arrest in India. After the new criminal laws came into force on 1 July 2024, the same protection now substantially continues under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

For men facing matrimonial criminal cases, especially allegations under Section 498A IPC / Section 85 BNS, dowry-related allegations, breach of trust, intimidation, or other offences punishable up to 7 years, this provision is not a small technicality. It is often the difference between lawful investigation and illegal arrest.

The law is simple: police cannot arrest mechanically merely because an FIR has been registered. Arrest must be justified. Notice is the rule. Arrest is the exception.

WHAT WAS SECTION 41A CRPC?

Section 41A CrPC required the police to issue a notice of appearance where arrest was not required. The accused had to appear before the police and cooperate with investigation. If he complied with the notice, he could not be arrested unless the police recorded reasons showing why arrest had become necessary.

This became a major safeguard in 498A and matrimonial cases, because the Supreme Court repeatedly noticed the problem of unnecessary arrest and mechanical detention.

WHAT IS SECTION 35(3) BNSS?

Section 35(3) BNSS now provides that where arrest is not required under Section 35(1), the police officer shall issue a notice directing the person to appear before him or at the place specified in the notice.

In plain language: if police want your cooperation but your arrest is not legally necessary, they must issue notice first.

SUPREME COURT: NOTICE IS THE RULE, ARREST IS THE EXCEPTION

In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2026, the Supreme Court clarified the position under the BNSS. The Court held that for offences punishable up to 7 years, notice under Section 35(3) BNSS is the rule, while arrest under Section 35(6) read with Section 35(1)(b) is a clear exception.

The Court also made it clear that arrest cannot be based on the subjective convenience of the police officer. The officer must objectively show that investigation cannot proceed effectively without custody.

This is crucial. Police cannot arrest merely to “ask questions”. Investigation is not a licence to destroy liberty.

ARNESH KUMAR: THE JUDGMENT THAT CHANGED ARREST LAW

The foundation of this protection is Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. The case itself arose from a 498A IPC matter. The Supreme Court held that in offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, arrest cannot be automatic.

The police must first satisfy themselves that arrest is necessary for reasons such as preventing further offence, proper investigation, preventing destruction of evidence, preventing witness influence, or ensuring presence of the accused.

The Supreme Court directed that police officers must not mechanically arrest in 498A cases and that Magistrates must not authorise detention casually. These directions apply not only to 498A, but to all offences punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years.

THE COURTROOM EXCHANGE THAT MATTERS

In the 2026 Satender Kumar Antil proceedings, the issue before the Supreme Court was whether notice under Section 35(3) BNSS is mandatory in offences punishable up to 7 years, and whether arrest is legally justified without the conditions under Section 35(1)(b). The Amicus Curiae argued that notice cannot be bypassed merely by recording reasons for arrest.

The Union submitted that Arnesh Kumar and Satender Kumar Antil had already settled the law: arrest is permissible only when statutory conditions exist and reasons are recorded.

The Supreme Court approved the view that notice under Section 35(3) BNSS must ordinarily be issued, and as long as the person complies with the notice, arrest is not open unless reasons are recorded.

WHY THIS MATTERS FOR MEN

A man accused in a matrimonial case often faces punishment before trial. FIR first. Social humiliation second. Arrest threat third. Settlement pressure fourth.

Section 41A CrPC and now Section 35(3) BNSS are safeguards against this exact abuse. They do not say that investigation will stop. They say investigation must remain lawful.

For a husband, father, brother, elderly parent, or relative named in a matrimonial FIR, this notice can prevent unnecessary arrest, custodial pressure, job loss, passport complications, family trauma, and forced settlements.

WHAT SHOULD A MAN DO AFTER RECEIVING SECTION 35(3) BNSS NOTICE?

Do not ignore it. Attend through proper legal strategy. Carry documents. Give a controlled written reply. Do not make emotional admissions. Do not sign blank papers. Keep proof of appearance. If more time is needed, request it in writing.

Compliance strengthens your legal position. Non-compliance gives police an argument to arrest.

WHAT IF POLICE ARREST WITHOUT NOTICE?

If the offence is punishable up to 7 years and there was no lawful reason for immediate arrest, the arrest can be challenged. In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2022, the Supreme Court held that non-compliance with Sections 41 and 41A CrPC would entitle the accused to bail. The Court also said investigating agencies are duty-bound to comply with these provisions.

Under the BNSS regime, the same principle continues through Section 35. Courts are expected to examine whether the arrest was necessary, whether reasons were recorded, and whether statutory safeguards were followed.

CAN WHATSAPP NOTICE REPLACE LEGAL NOTICE?

Courts have repeatedly frowned upon casual service of arrest-related notices. A notice affecting personal liberty must follow proper legal procedure.

Recent reporting from Rajasthan High Court proceedings also records that WhatsApp communication was not treated as valid legal service of Section 41A notice where statutory safeguards were breached.

Do not treat a random phone call or WhatsApp message as proper legal compliance. At the same time, do not ignore police communication. Respond legally and preserve proof.

PRACTICAL MEN’S RIGHTS CHECKLIST

If you are named in a 498A, dowry, domestic dispute, breach of trust, intimidation, or related FIR punishable up to 7 years:

Ask whether Section 35(3) BNSS notice has been issued.

Do not abscond.

Cooperate strategically, not emotionally.

Submit documents through counsel where required.

Preserve every notice, reply, call record, and attendance proof.

If police threaten arrest despite cooperation, move appropriate legal remedies.

If arrest happens without compliance, raise Section 35 / Arnesh Kumar / Satender Kumar Antil before the Court immediately.

FINAL WORD

Section 41A CrPC was not a favour to accused men. Section 35(3) BNSS is not a loophole. It is constitutional protection flowing from Article 21: personal liberty cannot be sacrificed to police convenience.

For men facing false or exaggerated matrimonial criminal cases, this provision is a shield. Use it properly. Fight legally. Fight early. Fight with documents.

The law does not say that every accused man is innocent. But it certainly says that no man should be arrested merely because an allegation has been made.

FAQs

1. Is Section 41A CrPC still applicable after BNSS?

For new cases under the BNSS regime, the corresponding protection is mainly under Section 35(3) BNSS.

2. Is Section 35(3) BNSS mandatory?

For offences punishable up to 7 years, the Supreme Court has held that notice is the rule and arrest is the exception.

3. Can police arrest after issuing Section 35(3) BNSS notice?

Yes, but only if reasons are recorded and statutory conditions for arrest exist.

4. Does this protect husbands in 498A cases?

Yes. The protection is highly relevant in 498A / Section 85 BNS and other matrimonial criminal cases punishable up to 7 years.

5. What happens if police violate Section 35(3) BNSS?

The arrest can be challenged, and non-compliance can support bail and action against unlawful arrest.

Protect your rights with informed legal strategy and dedicated support in sensitive family and custody disputes. For expert guidance and strong representation, get in touch today.

Visit: https://www.shoneekapoor.com

Contact No.: +91-8010850498

Can a husband lose his maintenance challenge even when the wife is financially independent?

The Orissa High Court says yes. The Court treated the husband’s MBA and engineering qualifications as proof of earning capacity despite his claim of financial hardship.

ORISSA: The Orissa High Court has refused to interfere with a Family Court order directing a husband to pay ₹6,000 monthly maintenance to his wife despite the fact that she is employed in a government job.

Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo, while dismissing the husband’s revision petition, observed that an able-bodied and educated husband cannot avoid his legal obligation to maintain his wife merely by taking the plea of unemployment or financial hardship.

The dispute began after the wife filed a maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC seeking ₹50,000 per month. The Family Court at Bhubaneswar later awarded her ₹6,000 monthly maintenance from January 2020.

Read Also: Child Custody Legal Guide: Can School Remove Father’s Name From Records?

Challenging this order before the High Court, the husband argued that the wife was already working as an Assistant Revenue Inspector in the office of the Tahasildar, Cuttack, and was earning a regular salary, therefore she was financially capable of maintaining herself.

During the proceedings, the High Court noted that the husband was highly educated and professionally qualified. The records showed that he had completed Master in Engineering and MBA qualifications and had earlier worked in reputed companies like Wipro and Harman.

The Family Court had also recorded that he had previously worked as a Senior Project Engineer and was capable of earning. At the same time, the Court also took note of the husband’s grievance that despite the wife having a stable government job with salary of around ₹31,000 per month, maintenance was still being continued against him.

Read Also: Why Indian Laws Treat Men As Guilty Until Proven Innocent: The Dangerous Reality of Gender Laws

The High Court observed that the husband had allegedly failed to clear maintenance dues for several years and arrears had crossed more than ₹4.31 lakh. The Court also noticed that despite repeated opportunities, the husband did not properly cooperate in early disposal of the matter.

While examining the issue, Justice Sahoo relied heavily upon Supreme Court judgments dealing with maintenance law. The Court reproduced the observations from Rajnesh v. Neha and reiterated that merely because a wife is earning does not automatically disentitle her from claiming maintenance.

The Court quoted:

Read Also: Section 41A CrPC & Section 35(3) BNSS: Arrest Protection For Men In 498A And Matrimonial Cases

“In Shailja v. Khobbanna, the Court held that merely because the wife is capable of earning, it would not be a sufficient ground to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.”

The High Court also highlighted the legal principle repeatedly used by courts in maintenance cases and quoted:

Read Also: Legal Mistakes Men Make During Divorce: Costly Errors That Destroy Cases

“An able-bodied husband must be presumed to be capable of earning sufficient money to maintain his wife and children, and cannot contend that he is not in a position to earn sufficiently to maintain his family.”

Justice Sahoo further relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan and observed that the responsibility of maintenance continues so long as the husband is capable of earning.

The Court ultimately held that the Family Court had properly appreciated the evidence and there was no major error requiring interference in revision jurisdiction. Justice Sahoo observed that the maintenance amount of ₹6,000 per month is not a huge fortune that has been showered on the wife and it does not deserve reduction.

With these observations, the Orissa High Court dismissed the husband’s revision petition and upheld the maintenance order passed by the Family Court.

Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved

Case Details

Case Title: Bibhuprasad Sahoo v. Snigdha Samaranika Das

Court: Orissa High Court at Cuttack

Case Number: RPFAM No. 01 of 2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo

Date of Judgment: 04 May 2026

Counsels:

For Petitioner: Ms. Rita Singh, Advocate

For Opposite Party: Mr. Debidutta Mohapatra, Advocate

Key Takeaways

A salaried government-employed wife still getting maintenance from her husband shows how maintenance law has slowly shifted from survival support to entitlement culture.

Husbands are increasingly judged on “earning capacity” instead of actual income, while a wife’s real salary and financial stability often get diluted in maintenance calculations.

A husband’s degrees, past jobs, and qualifications are now enough to presume he can always pay maintenance, even during unemployment or financial collapse.

Maintenance litigation is increasingly becoming punishment for husbands through arrears, delays, and endless financial pressure instead of balanced justice between two earning spouses.

Financial responsibility is still treated as a permanent obligation of the husband, while the financial independence of an earning wife rarely receives equal legal weight.

Click Here to Download Judgment – Bibhuprasad Sahoo v. Snigdha Samaranika Das.pdf

This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.

Protect your rights with informed legal strategy and dedicated support in sensitive family and custody disputes. For expert guidance and strong representation, get in touch today.

Visit: https://www.shoneekapoor.com

Contact No.: +91-8010850498

When spouses stop emotionally functioning as a family, does the law still force continuation of marriage?

The Supreme Court upheld divorce after marital breakdown, but removed cruelty and desertion findings against the wife.

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, in judgment delivered by Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Vikram Nath, strongly criticised the approach taken by the Family Court and Gujarat High Court for treating a wife’s professional ambitions and independent decisions as acts of cruelty against her husband.

The case involved a qualified dentist married to an Army officer posted in difficult locations including Kargil.

After marriage, the wife started her own dental clinic. Later, she shifted with her husband to Kargil during pregnancy but eventually returned to Ahmedabad because of limited medical facilities and later health complications suffered by their daughter. The child reportedly required specialised treatment and medical care.

The husband later sought divorce by alleging cruelty and desertion. The Family Court accepted several allegations against the wife and treated her decision to continue her dental practice, stay separately for certain periods, and prioritise her professional career as acts of cruelty.

Read Also: Legal Mistakes Men Make During Divorce: Costly Errors That Destroy Cases

The Supreme Court strongly disapproved this reasoning and observed:

“We are constrained to observe that the approach adopted by the learned Family Court, as affirmed by the High Court, is not only legally unsustainable but also deeply disquieting.”

According to the Supreme Court, marriage does not erase a woman’s individuality or professional identity. The Bench stated:

Read Also: Delhi Judge Aman Sharma Suicide Case: Real Truth Exposed With Timeline

“Marriage does not eclipse her individuality, nor does it subjugate her identity under that of her spouse.”

The judges also clarified that the wife’s actions were wrongly portrayed by the lower courts. The Court observed:

“What is portrayed as defiance in the impugned judgments is, in truth, an assertion of independence.”

Read Also: Child Custody Legal Guide: Can School Remove Father’s Name From Records?

During the proceedings, the Family Court had even treated the inauguration of the wife’s dental clinic without informing her husband or in-laws as an act of cruelty. The lower court had further observed that a wife is expected to stay wherever her husband resides.

The Supreme Court called this approach “pedantic and regressive.”

Read Also: Why More Men Are Afraid Of Marriage Today: Law, False Cases, Maintenance Fear & The Indian Courtroom Reality

The Bench further remarked:

“To brandish the effort of the wife to pursue her own career goals as acts of cruelty, as the same may have hurt the sentiments of the husband or the in-laws, is highly objectionable and deplorable.”

The husband had also sought criminal prosecution of the wife for alleged false statements and perjury. However, the Supreme Court rejected the request and held that the allegations appeared to be driven by “personal vendetta and spiteful approach.”

Finally, the Supreme Court removed all findings of cruelty and desertion against the wife from the judicial record. However, since both parties no longer wished to continue the marriage and the husband had reportedly remarried, the Court decided not to interfere with the divorce decree already granted by the lower courts.

The Bench clarified that the divorce would now be treated as granted on the ground of “irretrievable breakdown of marriage” instead of cruelty or desertion.

Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved

Case Details

Case Title: Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Numbers: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 25076 of 2024 Connected with SLP(Civil) No. 28451 of 2024

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath | Justice Sandeep Mehta

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 475

Date of Judgment: 12 May 2026

Key Takeaways

A husband’s emotional pain, loneliness, and struggle to hold a marriage together should not be ignored simply because the dispute is labelled as “modern independence.”

Living separately for years can deeply affect a husband mentally, emotionally, and financially, even when legal cruelty may not be established.

Marriage cannot survive when one partner feels emotionally abandoned while silently carrying the burden of broken family life.

Endless matrimonial litigation, allegations, and ego-driven battles often destroy the mental peace and dignity of husbands long before divorce is granted.

When relationships completely collapse, honest separation is better than stretching accusations that leave both spouses emotionally exhausted and the husband socially isolated.

Click Here to Download Judgment – Ann Saurabh Dutt v. Lieutenant Colonel Saurabh Iqbal Bahadur Dutt

This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.

Protect your rights with informed legal strategy and dedicated support in sensitive family and custody disputes. For expert guidance and strong representation, get in touch today.

Visit: https://www.shoneekapoor.com

Contact No.: +91-8010850498

Can merely naming a wife in a husband’s suicide note become enough to prosecute her for abetment of suicide?

The Calcutta High Court held that a suicide note alone is not sufficient unless there is clear evidence of direct instigation, intentional provocation, or active involvement leading to the suicide.

KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman and her father in a husband suicide case, observing that ordinary matrimonial disputes, emotional hurt, or marital discord cannot automatically become a case of abetment to suicide without clear evidence of intentional provocation. The judgment was delivered by Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee.

The case involved the suicide of Arijit Samaddar, who died on 19 September 2022. After his death, his father lodged an FIR alleging that the wife and her family members were responsible for the suicide. It was claimed that the deceased had named them in a suicide note.

The marriage had taken place in December 2021, but disputes soon arose between the couple. The wife allegedly discovered certain medical issues relating to the husband and repeatedly asked him to seek treatment. Due to differences between them, she left the matrimonial home in February 2022.

Read Also: Legal Mistakes Men Make During Divorce: Costly Errors That Destroy Cases

The Court noted that the wife returned only once on 2 July 2022 to collect her belongings, and there was no contact between the couple after that. Nearly two and a half months later, the husband died by suicide.

The husband’s family alleged that he suffered immense emotional pain, humiliation, and mental stress due to the marital dispute. It was also alleged that pictures relating to his private medical condition were circulated, which deeply affected him emotionally.

While examining the case, the Calcutta High Court observed that for an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation, intentional aid, or active conduct pushing a person towards suicide. The Court noted that mere emotional pain, marital discord, or humiliation cannot automatically amount to abetment unless there is a direct and intentional act linked to the suicide.

Read Also: Delhi Judge Aman Sharma Suicide Case: Real Truth Exposed With Timeline

Referring to Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhattisgarh, the Court reiterated:

“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”.”

The judgment further quoted:

Read Also: Child Custody Legal Guide: Can School Remove Father’s Name From Records?

“A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

The Court also relied upon State of West Bengal vs Orilal Jaiswal, where the Supreme Court had cautioned that ordinary matrimonial discord and emotional sensitivity alone are not sufficient to hold someone guilty of abetment to suicide.

Read Also: Why More Men Are Afraid Of Marriage Today: Law, False Cases, Maintenance Fear & The Indian Courtroom Reality

The High Court observed that the deceased husband appeared emotionally shattered because of the breakdown of his marriage and the humiliation he allegedly faced. However, the Court found that after July 2022 there was no direct contact between the husband and the accused persons, and no material showing any immediate provocation before the suicide.

The judgment specifically recorded:

“There is no allegation against any of the petitioners of a nature that the deceased was left with no alternative but to commit the unfortunate act of committing suicide.”

The Court further observed:

“There needs to be a positive act that creates an environment where the deceased is pushed to an edge, in order to sustain the charge levelled against the petitioners.”

Holding that the alleged acts were too remote and did not satisfy the legal ingredients of Sections 306 and 506 IPC, the High Court ultimately quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the Sessions Court at Barasat.

Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved

Case Details

Case Title: Shreya Basak & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.

Court: Calcutta High Court

Case Number: CRR 4048 of 2024

Bench: Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee

Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:699

Date of Judgment: 11.05.2026

Counsels:

For Petitioners: Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Aditya Tiwari

For Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Kallok Kumar Basu; Md. Jannat Ul Firdous; Mr. Rajsekhar Hota

For State: Mrs. Rituparna De Ghosh; Mr. Abhinaba Mukherjee

Key Takeaways

A husband silently suffering humiliation, rejection, and emotional collapse can become mentally shattered long before anyone notices his pain.

Not every failed marriage or emotional breakdown of a man should automatically turn into criminal liability against the other side without clear legal evidence.

Men facing public embarrassment, isolation, and matrimonial distress often suffer silently while their mental health remains ignored.

A suicide note may reflect emotional pain and frustration, but criminal prosecution still requires proof of direct instigation and intentional conduct.

Behind many matrimonial suicides is a vulnerable man struggling with emotional trauma, helplessness, and fear of social humiliation long before the final step.

Click Here to Download Judgment – Shreya Basak & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr

This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.

Protect your rights with informed legal strategy and dedicated support in sensitive family and custody disputes. For expert guidance and strong representation, get in touch today.

Visit: https://www.shoneekapoor.com

Contact No.: +91-8010850498

Costly legal mistakes Indian men make during divorce, maintenance, custody, 498A/BNS cruelty cases and evidence collection, with real Indian case laws.

NEW DELHI: Most men lose divorce battles not because the law gives them no remedy, but because they enter court emotionally, undocumented and badly advised.

Divorce is not only about ending a marriage. It is about evidence, pleadings, maintenance, custody, criminal defence, financial disclosure and timing. One careless WhatsApp message, one hidden bank account, one emotional settlement, or one badly drafted petition can cost a man years of litigation, lakhs of rupees and access to his child.

Under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, divorce can be sought under Section 13, while Sections 24, 25 and 26 deal with maintenance during proceedings, permanent alimony and child-related orders respectively. Maintenance can also arise under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the old Section 125 CrPC framework for maintenance of wives, children and parents.

Here are the most costly mistakes men make during divorce.

1. THINKING SILENCE WILL SAVE THEM

Many husbands believe that if they stay quiet, do not reply, and keep “adjusting”, the matter will settle.

That is the first trap.

Silence may look decent in society, but in court, silence often looks like admission. If allegations of cruelty, dowry demand, desertion, adultery, domestic violence or financial neglect are made, they must be answered with facts, dates, documents and evidence.

A man who does not preserve his defence early usually spends years repairing damage later.

2. FILING DIVORCE WITHOUT PROPER GROUNDS

Divorce is not granted because the husband is unhappy. It is granted when statutory grounds are proved.

For Hindus, cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act is a common ground, but cruelty must be pleaded and proved with specific facts. General statements like “she tortured me” or “she never respected me” are weak unless backed by events, documents, witnesses, medical records, complaints, chats, emails or conduct.

In Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, the Supreme Court laid down broad illustrations of mental cruelty. In K. Srinivas Rao v. D.A. Deepa, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court’s view that parties who did not live together could not cause cruelty to each other, and recognised that conduct including false criminal complaints may amount to mental cruelty in appropriate facts.

3. IGNORING FALSE CRIMINAL CASE RISK

Many men file divorce and assume the opposite side will only contest divorce.

That is naïve.

A divorce case may trigger allegations under old Section 498A IPC or now Section 85 BNS, domestic violence proceedings, maintenance claims, child custody disputes, dowry allegations and sometimes workplace or social complaints.

Section 85 BNS deals with cruelty by husband or his relatives; cruelty is defined separately under Section 86 BNS.

The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar held that arrest should not be automatic in 498A-type offences and police must satisfy legal requirements before arrest. But men still make the mistake of waiting casually until arrest becomes a real threat.

4. HIDING INCOME OR ASSETS

This is one of the most expensive mistakes.

Maintenance litigation is document-heavy. Courts examine income, liabilities, lifestyle, dependents, bank statements, ITRs, salary slips, property, loans and standard of living.

In Rajnesh v. Neha, the Supreme Court issued detailed maintenance guidelines and directed disclosure of assets and liabilities to bring transparency in maintenance proceedings.

A man who hides income may lose credibility permanently. Once credibility is lost, even genuine arguments become difficult to prove.

5. ASSUMING EDUCATED WIFE MEANS NO MAINTENANCE

Many husbands think, “She is educated, so she will not get maintenance.”

Wrong.

Education alone is not always enough. Courts look at actual earning, employability, past employment, present income, standard of living and dependence. At the same time, if the wife is genuinely earning well, that must be proved through documents, ITRs, employment records, bank entries, LinkedIn profile, professional registration, business details and lifestyle evidence.

A recent Allahabad High Court report noted denial of interim maintenance to a doctor-wife where tax records showed annual income of ₹31 lakh, while another recent Delhi court report noted that education alone does not automatically prove self-sufficiency.

The law does not work on assumptions. It works on proof.

6. FIGHTING CUSTODY EMOTIONALLY, NOT LEGALLY

Many fathers turn custody battles into emotional wars. That harms the child and the father’s case.

Custody is decided on welfare of the child, not ego of either parent. The father must document school involvement, medical care, financial support, emotional bonding, visitation denial, parental alienation and the child’s routine.

Courts increasingly criticise parents who use children as bargaining tools in matrimonial disputes. A recent Gujarat High Court report condemned the practice of using children as pawns in divorce wars.

A father must fight for custody and visitation with discipline, not anger.

7. LEAVING THE MATRIMONIAL HOME WITHOUT STRATEGY

Sometimes leaving the home is necessary for safety. But leaving without legal planning can create allegations of desertion, neglect, abandonment or refusal to maintain.

Before leaving, a man should preserve proof of circumstances: threats, abuse, complaints, medical records, audio/video where legally obtained, witnesses, messages and financial transfers.

Do not simply walk out and later say, “I was forced.”

Court asks: where is the proof?

8. SETTLING UNDER PRESSURE WITHOUT WRITTEN PROTECTION

Many men agree to oral settlements: “I will pay now, she will withdraw later.”

This is dangerous.

Get Info’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.Subscribe

Remember me for faster sign in

Every settlement must be written, specific and enforceable. It must cover divorce, maintenance, alimony, stridhan, child custody, visitation, pending FIRs, DV case, 125/144 maintenance, execution, quashing, withdrawal timelines and default consequences.

A vague settlement is not settlement. It is future litigation in disguise.

9. SENDING ANGRY MESSAGES

One abusive WhatsApp message can destroy months of legal work.

Men must understand that every message may become evidence. Threats, abuses, emotional blackmail, admissions, desperate apologies, suicide threats, payment promises and angry voice notes can all be used in court.

During divorce, communicate like every word will be read by a judge.

10. NOT PRESERVING DIGITAL EVIDENCE PROPERLY

Screenshots alone may not be enough in serious litigation. Preserve emails, chats, call logs, transaction records, photographs, metadata, cloud backups, original devices and certificates wherever required under evidence law.

Do not edit, crop, forward repeatedly or manipulate evidence. If evidence looks tampered, it becomes a liability.

11. DRAGGING PARENTS AND RELATIVES INTO EVERY FIGHT

A husband often involves parents emotionally, financially and legally. But matrimonial litigation can easily pull old parents, sisters, brothers-in-law and distant relatives into criminal complaints.

The Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand observed that some matrimonial complaints may be filed with oblique motives and courts must consider pragmatic realities.

Protect your family by keeping documentation, limiting unnecessary involvement and avoiding provocative communication.

12. TREATING MAINTENANCE AS PUNISHMENT INSTEAD OF LITIGATION

Maintenance is not a moral certificate. It is a legal claim.

A husband must contest maintenance with facts: actual income, wife’s income, liabilities, dependents, child expenses, standard of living, medical expenses and genuine financial capacity.

But he must not disobey court orders casually. Non-payment can lead to execution, coercive orders and loss of credibility.

13. NOT TAKING COUNTER-LEGAL REMEDIES

If allegations are false, a man should not only defend. He must evaluate legal remedies: quashing, discharge, anticipatory bail, perjury, defamation, restitution, custody, visitation, divorce on cruelty, complaint against false evidence, or appropriate civil/criminal action.

But counter-cases must be strategic, not emotional revenge.

14. CHOOSING SOCIAL MEDIA OVER COURT STRATEGY

Posting every dispute online may give temporary sympathy but can damage the case. Divorce litigation involves privacy, children, reputation and evidence.

Speak publicly only when legally safe. Do not publish confidential pleadings, child details or unverified allegations.

15. HIRING LATE AND EXPECTING MIRACLES

The biggest mistake: waiting until the case is already damaged.

Men come after arrest threat, after ex parte orders, after maintenance arrears, after missed deadlines, after bad admissions, after signing poor settlements.

Divorce strategy must begin before the first legal notice, not after the tenth court date.

FINAL WORD

A man in divorce litigation must stop behaving like a wounded husband and start behaving like a prepared litigant.

Emotion is not evidence. Anger is not strategy. Silence is not dignity. Poor documentation is self-destruction.

The man who records facts, preserves evidence, files correctly, discloses honestly, protects his child legally and contests false allegations with discipline has a fighting chance.

The man who reacts emotionally pays the cost.

FAQs

What is the biggest mistake men make during divorce in India?

The biggest mistake is poor documentation. Without evidence, even genuine suffering becomes only a story.

Can a husband get divorce on mental cruelty?

Yes. Under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, mental cruelty can be a ground for divorce if properly pleaded and proved.

Can wife claim maintenance if she is educated?

Yes, education alone does not automatically defeat maintenance. Actual earning capacity and financial independence must be proved.

Can false 498A or cruelty cases help husband get divorce?

In appropriate facts, false criminal complaints and reckless allegations may amount to mental cruelty, but the husband must prove falsity and impact.

Should a man leave home during divorce?

Only with legal planning. Leaving without evidence and strategy may create allegations of desertion, neglect or abandonment.

Protect your rights with informed legal strategy and dedicated support in sensitive family and custody disputes. For expert guidance and strong representation, get in touch today.

Visit: https://www.shoneekapoor.com

Contact No.: +91–8010850498

Indian men are not afraid of marriage. They are afraid of one-sided legal risk, false 498A/85 BNS cases, maintenance pressure, arrest fear, custody battles and years of courtroom trauma.

NEW DELHI: Marriage was once seen as stability. Today, for many Indian men, it has become a legal risk assessment.

This is not because men hate marriage. This is because men have seen what happens when a private marital dispute enters the police station, family court and criminal court at the same time.

One failed marriage can bring:

498A IPC / Section 85 BNS criminal case, Domestic Violence Act proceedings, maintenance claims, child custody litigation, dowry allegations, arrest threats, social stigma, workplace damage, travel restrictions, settlement pressure and years of legal expenses.

That is the real reason more men are afraid of marriage today.

THE FEAR IS NOT IMAGINARY

Section 498A IPC has now shifted into Section 85 BNS, with cruelty defined under Section 86 BNS. The punishment remains imprisonment up to three years and fine. The offence continues to create serious criminal exposure for the husband and his relatives.

The Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar recognised that arrests in 498A-type cases were being made mechanically and held that police cannot arrest automatically merely because a complaint is filed.

That judgment did not come in vacuum. It came because men and their families were being arrested first and heard later.

MARRIAGE TODAY CAN BECOME MULTI-FRONT LITIGATION

A man facing matrimonial litigation is often not fighting one case. He may be fighting multiple proceedings at once:

criminal cruelty case, dowry case, Domestic Violence Act case, maintenance under Section 125 CrPC / BNSS equivalent provisions, divorce, child custody, property allegations and sometimes workplace complaints.

The law must protect genuine victims. No serious person disputes that.

But the law must also protect innocent men from weaponised litigation. Courts exist for justice, not revenge.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS ACTUALLY SAID

In Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India, the Supreme Court refused to strike down Section 498A, but clearly warned that misuse of the provision can become “legal terrorism.”

In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court expressed concern about exaggerated allegations in matrimonial complaints and the tendency to rope in relatives.

In Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, the Supreme Court balanced the issue by refusing to dilute genuine women’s protection, but it did not deny the concern of misuse altogether.

This is the exact legal reality: genuine cruelty must be punished, but false implication cannot be ignored.

NCRB DATA SHOWS WHY THE FEAR HAS SPREAD

NCRB’s Crime in India 2023 data reported about 1.33 lakh cases under “cruelty by husband or relatives,” forming the largest category of crimes against women at 29.8%.

That number tells two stories at once.

First, genuine domestic cruelty remains a serious problem.

Second, matrimonial criminal litigation has become one of the largest criminal law categories in India. For men, this means marriage breakdown is not merely emotional failure; it can become criminal exposure.

ARREST IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE AUTOMATIC

Under the new BNSS regime, Section 35(3) provides that where arrest is not required, police must issue notice directing the person to appear.

In 2026, the Supreme Court again clarified that for offences punishable up to seven years, notice is the rule and arrest is the exception.

But on the ground, the fear remains: police notice, anticipatory bail, relatives dragged in, reputation damaged, and compromise pressure begins before trial even starts.

MAINTENANCE FEAR IS ALSO REAL

Many men are not afraid of supporting a genuinely dependent wife or child.

They are afraid of being treated as an ATM despite disputed allegations, concealed income, earning capacity of the wife, short marriages, or parallel litigation pressure.

Indian courts have repeatedly held that financial status, income, earning capacity and disclosure of both parties matter in maintenance litigation. Your own legal news coverage shows recent High Court focus on earning capacity and financial disclosure in maintenance cases.

The fear is not maintenance. The fear is unfair maintenance.

WHY YOUNG MEN ARE RECALCULATING MARRIAGE

Men today are asking practical questions:

What happens if the marriage fails within six months?

What happens if my parents are named in the FIR?

What happens if I lose access to my child?

What happens if my wife earns but still claims maintenance?

What happens if one allegation destroys my career before trial?

What happens if I win after 10 years, but lose my youth, money and peace?

These are not anti-woman questions. These are legal survival questions.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT MARRIAGE. THE PROBLEM IS LEGAL IMBALANCE.

A good marriage is still a beautiful institution.

But a bad marriage under one-sided litigation pressure can become a legal battlefield where the man is presumed guilty socially long before any court decides evidence.

This is why more men are delaying marriage, avoiding marriage, insisting on financial clarity, documenting communications and consulting lawyers before taking life decisions.

Men have learnt a harsh lesson: love may be emotional, but litigation is documentary.

FINAL WORD

Men are not afraid of marriage.

Men are afraid of false cases, automatic stigma, arrest pressure, maintenance misuse, child alienation, family harassment and a system where acquittal after years does not restore lost life.

The answer is not to weaken laws meant for genuine victims.

The answer is equal accountability.

Punish real cruelty. Punish false cases. Protect women. Protect men. Protect families from litigation abuse.

That is justice.

FAQs

Why are Indian men afraid of marriage today? Because one failed marriage can trigger criminal cases, maintenance claims, DV proceedings, custody battles and years of litigation.

Is 498A still valid after new criminal laws? Yes. 498A IPC is now reflected in Section 85 BNS, with cruelty defined under Section 86 BNS.

Can police arrest a husband automatically in 498A / 85 BNS cases? No. Arrest is not automatic. Arnesh Kumar guidelines and Section 35 BNSS require safeguards before arrest.

Can an earning wife still claim maintenance? It depends on facts. Courts examine income, earning capacity, liabilities, lifestyle and disclosures of both spouses.

Are all matrimonial cases false? No. Genuine cruelty cases exist and must be punished. But false and exaggerated cases also exist and must face consequences.

Protect your rights with informed legal strategy and dedicated support in sensitive family and custody disputes. For expert guidance and strong representation, get in touch today.

Visit: https://www.shoneekapoor.com

Contact No.: +91-8010850498

Can Family Courts exercise transfer powers because they function like District Courts?

Rajasthan High Court says- No, the power of transfer cases under Section 24 CPC lies only with the High Court or District Court, not Family Courts.

JAIPUR: The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur, led by Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Anil Kumar Upman, settled an important legal issue regarding transfer of matrimonial cases.

The controversy began when Family Court No.1, Bharatpur transferred four pending cases to another Family Court assuming it had the authority to do so under general powers. This action created confusion, especially when Family Court No.2 raised an objection and sought clarity from the High Court on whether such power actually exists.

Read Also: 5 Rights Every Husband Should Know In India: Most Ignored Legal Protections

The matter was placed before the Division Bench through a civil reference under Section 113 CPC. The High Court examined whether Family Courts can transfer cases between themselves within the same district. The Court analysed provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, Family Courts Act, and Hindu Marriage Act, along with earlier judicial views.

It was argued by one side that since Family Courts exercise jurisdiction similar to District Courts in matrimonial matters, they should also have incidental powers like transfer. However, the opposing side argued that such power is not expressly given and cannot be assumed.

The Court clearly explained that Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure gives power of transfer only to the High Court or the District Court. This power is exclusive and cannot be exercised by any other court unless specifically authorised. The judges emphasised that the Family Courts Act, 1984, only provides jurisdiction to hear and decide disputes, and does not grant any power to transfer cases from one Family Court to another.

Read Also: Anticipatory Bail Application Format Under Section 482 BNSS: PDF & Affidavit

The Court further relied on the important precedent of Munna Lal vs State of U.P. (AIR 1991 All 189), where it was held that Family Courts act as substitutes for civil courts or magistrates depending on the nature of proceedings, but the power to transfer cases still remains with the High Court under Sections 22, 23 and 24 CPC.

The judgment reinforced the principle that transfer jurisdiction is separate and cannot be assumed merely because a court exercises similar subject-matter jurisdiction.

The High Court also examined an earlier 2017 Single Judge decision which had suggested that Family Courts could transfer cases among themselves to reduce litigation burden. The Division Bench found that this view ignored statutory provisions and created legal inconsistency. It clarified that such observations cannot override clear legislative intent.

Read Also: Real Court Cases Where False Allegations Backfired On Wife

It stated:

“Family Court lacks jurisdiction to transfer cases from one Family Court to another even within same District and Section 24 CPC empowers only the District Court or the High Court, not Family Courts to transfer cases.”

The Court made it clear that the entire assumption of power by Family Courts was legally flawed and contrary to the statutory scheme. The court said:

“The view expounded by learned Single Judge in the order dated 24.04.2017… can be held per incuriam and is not a binding judicial precedent, hence, need not to be followed by the Family Courts.”

The High Court further went on to invalidate the specific transfer order passed by the Family Court at Bharatpur, holding that such an order had no legal standing from the very beginning because it was passed without authority.

“The order dated 06.12.2025 has been passed by the Family Court No.1, Bharatpur, without having any jurisdiction of transfer the cases… hence, the order be treated as non-est.”

Reinforcing the correct legal position, the Court clarified that the power to transfer matrimonial or related proceedings lies strictly with higher judicial forums, ensuring that procedural discipline is maintained and lower courts do not overstep their authority.

Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved

Case Details

Case Title: Hema W/o Mohit Bhardwaj vs Mohit Bhardwaj

Case Type: D.B. Civil Reference No. 1/2026

Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:8401-DB

Court: High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur

Date of Order: 24/02/2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudesh Bansal | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upman

Counsels:

For Petitioner: Mr. Jitendra Mitruka, Mr. Avi Airun, Mr. Hemant Taylor, Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma, Mr. T.C. Swami

For Respondent: Mr. Chhatrasal Singh Tanwar, Mr. Abhilash Sharma

Key Takeaways

Family Courts do not have legal authority to transfer matrimonial cases, even within the same district.

Transfer powers under Section 24 CPC are exclusively vested in the High Court or District Court.

Any transfer order passed by a Family Court is without jurisdiction and legally void (non-est).

Earlier judicial views suggesting such powers to Family Courts have been declared per incuriam and not binding.

Parties seeking transfer of matrimonial cases must approach the High Court to ensure proper legal procedure.

Click Here to Download Judgment – Hema W_o Mohit Bhardwaj vs Mohit Bhardwaj

This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.

Protect your rights with informed legal strategy and dedicated support in sensitive family and custody disputes. For expert guidance and strong representation, get in touch today.

Visit: https://www.shoneekapoor.com

Contact No.: +91-8010850498