The High Court recently refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the relatives of a man in a Section 498A case, saying that many a time, relatives living in distant places also meddle in the affairs of a couple and harass the wife.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by a husband, his parents and siblings seeking to quash an FIR lodged against them.

The accused pointed out that while the husband lived in Akola district, his parents and a married sister were residing at Amravati district and his younger brother hailed from Pune City. They argued that they didn't live with the applicant-husband and therefore, the allegations made against them, who are in-laws or relatives of the husband cannot be said to be true.

The Court in an order passed on June 8, refused to accept the argument on two counts.

"Firstly, there is no presumption in law that a relative living at a distance is always innocent, unless proved otherwise. A relative staying away from the husband and wife can and has been seen in many cases meddling in affairs of the married couple and that too of such a nature and to such an extent, as to amount to real harassment," the judges held.

Further, the bench said that probe in the case was still going on and more material could come to light upon further investigation.

"Then, up till now, we have found that the allegations made by the complainant wife against all the applicants are specific in nature and if their genuineness is to be tested, it would be possible only at the time of trial and not at this stage. Therefore, just because the remaining applicants are not residing alongwith the husband and the wife, it cannot be said that the allegations made against the in-laws do not disclose any offence," the bench added.

The couple had gotten married in 2007 and had three children. However, in 2017, the wife learnt that the husband was having an extra-marital affair. On confronting him, he assaulted her.

As far as the in-laws are concerned, the wife alleged in her FIR that when she informed her husband's parents and siblings about his extra marital affair, they instead of controlling his conduct, started abusing her. There were also demands of ₹50,000 towards dowry by the in-laws.

Noting the contentions from the FIR, the bench underlined that specific roles had been attributed to all the accused in the case. It held that no vague or general omnibus statements had been made against the in-laws, thus making out a prime facie case against them.

In view of this, the Court refused to quash the FIR.