Matrimonial criminal proceedings were kept in abeyance pending expedited resolution of the divorce petition.

Applicant No. 3, Siddharth Rhoda, married Respondent No. 2, Priyanshi Aggarwal, on 26 February 2023. The parties lived together for approximately one month, after which Applicant No. 3 left for Canada on 1 April 2023 pursuant to a job offer. The parties thereafter lived separately, and matrimonial disputes arose.

Respondent No. 2 initiated multiple proceedings against Applicant No. 3 and his family, including maintenance proceedings under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the criminal proceedings challenged in the present case.

The present application was filed under Section 528 of the statute described in the judgment as the “BNS, 2023,” challenging the entire proceedings in Criminal Case No. 7452 of 2025, the cognizance order dated 3 November 2025, the FIR dated 18 October 2024, and the charge-sheet dated 9 May 2025.

In an earlier proceeding concerning renewal of Applicant No. 3’s passport, the applicants undertook to attempt settlement of the matrimonial dispute. The passport was subsequently renewed, and Applicant No. 3 returned from Canada to India.

Whether, in view of the parties’ matrimonial discord and Respondent No. 2’s refusal to resume cohabitation, directions should be issued for expeditious determination of the pending divorce proceedings by mutual consent.

Whether the parties’ competing claims concerning jewellery and marriage expenditure should be addressed by the Family Court while the divorce proceedings are processed.

Whether the pending criminal and other matrimonial proceedings should remain in abeyance pending the final outcome of the divorce proceedings.

The application invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the provision referred to in the judgment as the “BNS, 2023,” to challenge the criminal proceedings, cognizance order, FIR, and charge-sheet.

The underlying prosecution concerned Sections 498A and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The matrimonial proceedings were governed by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, including Section 13(1)(ia), concerning divorce on the ground of cruelty, and Section 9, concerning restitution of conjugal rights.

The Court proceeded on the basis that, where the wife had unequivocally refused to resume matrimonial life and both parties were willing to resolve the matrimonial dispute through divorce, the Family Court could be directed to expedite the divorce process and address connected monetary and property claims; however, the judgment did not cite or apply any specific precedent and did not adjudicate the merits of the criminal allegations.

The Court interacted with both parties and found that Applicant No. 3 continued to express a desire to restore the matrimonial relationship, while Respondent No. 2 was adamant that she wanted a divorce and had already instituted divorce proceedings.

In those circumstances, the Court considered that there was no realistic prospect of restoration of cohabitation and directed Applicant No. 3 to file an affidavit consenting to divorce in Respondent No. 2’s pending divorce petition.

The Court further directed the Family Court to consider Respondent No. 2’s jewellery claim and to permit both sides to place their submissions regarding the competing claims. The parties were encouraged to resolve the disputed marriage expenditure amicably, although that dispute was not to delay adjudication of the divorce petition.

Given that the parties had allegedly lived separately for more than three years, the Court directed the Family Court to waive the statutory period of separation and prescribed an expedited schedule for consideration of the claims, the first motion, and the second motion.

Rather than deciding the challenge to the criminal proceedings on its merits, the Court ordered that all pending proceedings remain in abeyance subject to the final outcome of the divorce petition.

The Family Court was directed to consider the consent, address the jewellery claim and related submissions, endeavour to decide the competing claims within one month, complete the first motion within the following fifteen days, and fix and expedite the second motion within the next twenty days.

The statutory separation period was directed to be waived in view of the parties’ alleged separation for more than three years.

All pending proceedings, including the criminal proceedings challenged in the application, were ordered to remain in abeyance subject to the final outcome of the divorce petition.