Latest Judgement

1. INTRODUCTION
   The Kerala High Court recently held that it is “not unusual for a wife to forgive her husband and withdraw criminal cases to protect her family,” while cautioning that “there is always a limit to what a woman can endure.” The Court upheld a divorce decree on cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, despite earlier withdrawals of FIRs under Sections 498A, 406, 506, 447, 451, and 324 IPC, as well as a Domestic Violence Act protection order. This article situates the judgment within the doctrinal frameworks of domestic violence law and marital jurisprudence, examining social pressures behind case‑withdrawal, judicial responses to forgiveness, and doctrinal implications for cruelty standards.
2. SOCIAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT OF WITHDRAWAL AND FORGIVENESS
   Cycle of Abuse & Forgiveness as Survival
   Lenore Walker’s cycle of abuse—escalating tension, abusive incident, reconciliation (“honeymoon”), and calm explains why victims often forgive and withdraw complaints in hopes of change. In Indian society, social stigma, gender norms, and familial cohesion further pressure women to forgive to preserve the household, even amid repeated abuse. As the judgment recognized, these acts are often strategic and transformative, aimed at emotional healing and family stability.
3. MISUSE & STRATEGIC WITHDRAWAL UNDER 498A AND DV ACT
   Section 498A IPC, while designed to protect women from cruelty and dowry harassment, the provision has seen reports of misuse or compromise settlements, many resulting in acquittal. The broader civil remedy framework under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides protection and monetary relief (Section 20) but enforcement often depends on proof and complaint continuation. Courts have noted, especially in annulled marriages, that DV Act protections survive even post‑divorce. In contrast, some high courts have quashed FIRs in amicably settled cases or mutually divorced parties under CrPC Section 482 when public interest demands a respectful closure.
4. DOCTRINAL AND PROPRIETARY ANALYSIS
   JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF FORGIVENESS AND WITHDRAWAL
   The Kerala High Court’s judgment acknowledges that wives may repeatedly forgive, withdraw FIRs, or even disclaim divorce petitions until the cruelty becomes intolerable. These acts are not inconsistent with proof of cruelty, especially if violence continues. The Court distinguished strategic forgiveness from passive endurance, emphasizing active agency in withdrawal.
5. CRUELTY THRESHOLD UNDER DIVORCE ACT
   Under the Divorce Act, cruelty involves conduct rendering continued marital cohabitation intolerable. It is not erased by past forgiveness if the abusive behaviour persists. The Court held that the wife’s withdrawals did not undermine her credibility or her ultimate claim to divorce. Prior compromise or withdrawal does not bar subsequent proceedings if cruelty is satisfactorily established.
6. IMPLICATIONS FOR ADVISERS AND PRACTITIONERS IN INDIA
   i. FOR LITIGANTS
   Practitioners advising victims must recognize the complex interaction of forgiveness, withdrawal, and credibility. Clients often withdraw FIRs for pragmatic reasons but may later pursue divorce when cruelty persists. Divorce petitions on cruelty grounds may remain viable even if earlier criminal complaints were withdrawn, provided contemporary evidence is consistentii. FOR COURTS
   Judges should be alert to the social pressures influencing withdrawal and should avoid equating compassion or familial duty with weakness. Courts must distinguish between strategic forgiveness and factual denial, and assess cruelty independently of earlier withdrawals.iii. FOR LAW REFORMERS
   The judgment underscores the need for policies supporting victims beyond criminal recourse, such as sustained protection, counselling, helplines, and legal aid. Ensuring safe withdrawal mechanisms, backup protection orders, and alternate support structures is critical to prevent victims from being coerced into compromising their safety.
7. CONCLUSION
   The Kerala High Court’s decision advances a nuanced understanding: forgiveness and withdrawal may be normative responses to domestic violence within familial and social constraints, but they do not consume or negate the victim’s rights under matrimonial or criminal law. Cruelty must be judged on its persistent character and impact, not on past attempts at reconciliation. This ruling reinforces the autonomy and dignity of the aggrieved and invites sensitive yet firm adjudication in domestic violence jurisprudence.

This article has been researched and written by Advocate Aarun Chanda, who practices divorce law in Mumbai and Pune. It is intended solely for academic purposes and should not be construed as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a qualified lawyer or advocate specializing in divorce cases for professional legal guidance.

          Seeking expert legal guidance?- Contact The Divorce Law Firm today.