Delhi HC Fines Mother For Using Minor Daughter, POCSO Act As Weapons Against Estranged Husband
While hearing the case, Justice Arun Monga said that the shield of child protection laws cannot be converted into a sword for vindictive prosecutions, reports Live Law.
Read Also: Wife Pressuring Husband To Separate From Family Is Cruelty, Ground For Divorce: Delhi HC
The mother used the Act and her daughter to settle personal scores with her husband. The mother had filed a complaint in 2020 alleging that her minor daughter was sexually abused by the father and cousins of the victim. The woman had become detached with her husband, with matrimonial acrimony ongoing between them.
Earlier, a trial court had dismissed her application to summon the family members and relatives of the estranged husband — the victim’s grandmother and paternal aunts, as accused in the POCSO case. She then challenged the lower court’s order imposing a fine of Rs. 20,000 upon her, before the High Court.
Read Also: ‘Husband Rich’: Court Hikes Wife’s Compensation To Rs 1 Crore From 5 Lakh For Domestic Violence
However, the Delhi High Court, while upholding the costs imposed upon the mother by the trial court, additionally imposed Rs. 10,000 costs on her in addition to dismissing her petition.
The court noted that what was projected as a quest for justice is an exercise in arm-twisting, conceived not to advance the cause of the child but, ill conceived to settle personal scores because of deep-seated hatred against husband
“The attempt to array aged grandparents and paternal aunts, who appear to be entirely gullible and had no role in the alleged incidents, reflects a clear design to entangle innocent family members of the petitioner’s estranged husband in protracted criminal litigation,” the court observed.
The Court ordered that the costs be paid to Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) for making the State to undergo needless and vexatious litigation. The court further pointed out that summoning additional accused is a serious step that impacts his liberty and thus and the court must guard against over extension of criminal liability based on “unacceptable, uncorroborated and inconsistent testimony of a minor child, especially when influenced by an interested parent.”
