Delhi High Court: Child Protection Laws Cannot Be Misused as Tools of Personal Vendetta in Matrimonial Disputes

by

The Delhi High Court, in a recent judgment titled Ms. A.M. v. Government of NCT of Delhi (decided on September 2, 2025), held that child protection laws such as the POCSO Act cannot be used as tools of personal vendetta in matrimonial disputes. The case arose from a mother’s attempt to implicate her husband’s relatives under the POCSO Act by filing an application under Section 319 CrPC to summon them as additional accused. The trial court had earlier dismissed her application in November 2024, describing it as an act of “arm-twisting” intended to harass the husband. Upholding that view, the High Court emphasized that while protecting children from sexual offences is of utmost importance, such laws must not be misused for settling personal scores or causing undue hardship to innocent persons.

Case background & timeline

  1. FIR and initial proceedings (2020)
    • In January 2020, a woman (the petitioner/mother) lodged an FIR at the Malviya Nagar Police Station, Delhi, alleging sexual assault of her minor daughter by (i) the husband and (ii) a cousin of the victim.
    • The FIR invoked several provisions: under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — Section 354 (outraging modesty), Section 376DB (gang rape of a girl below 12), etc. — as well as sections under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act (Sections 6, 10, 12).
    • At some point, the mother also faced a charge under Section 21 of the POCSO Act — i.e. for allegedly failing to report the offence in a timely manner.
  2. Framing of charges / high court action
    • The trial court framed charges against the husband and the cousin.
    • The High Court had earlier set aside (or quashed) the charge against the mother under Section 21 POCSO, so she was no longer part of that charge.
    • Subsequently, the mother sought to implicate additional persons (her husband’s relatives, such as the paternal grandmother, paternal aunts) via an application under Section 319 CrPC (which allows courts to summon additional persons as accused if evidence emerges during trial implicating them).
  3. Trial court’s order (30 November 2024)
    • The Additional Sessions Judge, sitting as the Special Court under POCSO, dismissed her application under Section 319 CrPC to summon the husband’s mother, sisters, aunts, etc. as additional accused.
    • The trial court characterized her attempt as “arm-twisting” aimed at harassing the husband.
    • It also imposed a cost of ₹20,000 on the petitioner (the mother) for bringing a frivolous or vexatious application.
  4. High Court’s decision (2 September 2025)
    • The petitioner challenged the trial court’s order before the Delhi High Court. The matter was heard and decided on 2 September 2025 by Justice Arun Monga.
    • The High Court upheld the trial court’s order, agreeing that summoning additional accused was not justified in this case.
    • The Court also upheld and maintained the cost order (i.e. the ₹20,000) and further imposed an additional cost of ₹10,000 on the petitioner, to be paid to Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA).

Key legal issues & reasoning

  1. Use of Section 319 CrPC & its threshold
    • Section 319 allows a court to summon additional persons as accused if, during the trial, “fresh and cogent evidence” emerges implicating them. The evidence must be “believable and acceptable” and must satisfy at least the threshold for issuance of a summons.
    • The High Court held that in this case, no such fresh, credible evidence had emerged implicating the proposed additional accused. The victim’s testimony was vague, general, and inconsistent, and merely repeated prior general assertions about “family knowledge.”
    • The Court emphasized that summoning additional accused is a serious step implicating the right to liberty, and cannot be done on the basis of speculation or weak, uncorroborated testimony, especially when influenced by a parent with motive.
  2. Abuse of process — vindictive motive
    • A central aspect of the High Court’s reasoning was that in this case, the mother was using the child’s situation as a tool to settle personal scores arising out of matrimonial acrimony. The Court observed that the attempt to drag in elderly and (apparently) uninvolved family members of the husband was inconsistent with the child’s welfare and appeared to be revenge-driven litigation.
    • The Court stated that child-protection laws cannot be misused as instruments of vendetta and that the “shield of child protection laws cannot be converted into a sword for vindictive prosecutions.”
    • The judgment described the conduct as “deeply disturbing” and held that such misuse undermines the fairness of proceedings, trivializes the serious offences under POCSO, and risks compromising proceedings.
  3. Protection of rights of the accused & fairness in criminal process
    • The High Court underscored that summoning additional persons affects their liberty and criminal exposure. Thus, courts must be vigilant against overextension of criminal liability based on weak or coerced testimony (especially of minors).
    • The Court also noted that the rights of innocent persons (e.g. grandparents, aunts) must be protected from being unnecessarily dragged into protracted criminal proceedings without acceptable evidence.
    • The judgment recognized that protecting the child’s interest is critical, but multiplying accused persons without justification may complicate, prolong, and prejudice the trial process, which is contrary to the child’s interest.
  4. Costs as a deterrent against frivolous litigation
    • The imposition of costs—first by the trial court (₹20,000) and then additional cost (₹10,000) by High Court—was justified to discourage misuse of the criminal process in a manner that burdens the State and harms innocent persons.
    • The High Court ordered the cost to be paid to DLSA, emphasizing that the State should not be made to undergo needless litigation driven by vengeance.

Significance & implications

  • This case serves as a caution: while child protection laws like POCSO are vital safeguards, they are not to be misused as tools for retaliatory or harassing litigation.
  • It reaffirms the high threshold for invoking Section 319 CrPC and highlights judicial scrutiny when additional accused are to be summoned mid-trial.
  • The ruling attempts to strike a balance: preserving the rights of victims and the seriousness of POCSO offences, while preventing the criminal justice system from being weaponized in personal disputes.

  • It is an important precedent in the context of matrimonial and family-law disputes crossing into criminal territory, especially when allegations involve minors.

Please share

Leave a comment