Delhi High Court Revives Disabled Man’s Abuse Complaint Against Ex-Wife, Her Family

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court revoked a special court order which dismissed a complaint by an 86% permanent locomotor disability man against his ex-wife and family under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. The dismissal was "perfunctory and ignored allegations of continued harassment," wrote Justice Prateek Jalan, who ruled on October 13. The court ordered the case to be reconsidered, but it did not rule on the truth of the allegations.

The Delhi High Court has quashed a special court's rejection of a harassment case filed by an 86% permanent locomotor disabled man against his ex-wife and her in-laws and remanded it for fresh hearing. According to Law Trend, Justice Prateek Jalan said the special court's rejection was "perfunctory" and "unjustified" in ruling on a criminal revision petition on October 13.

The dispute

They got married on April 14, 2012. The couple lived together for fewer than a month, and divorced on May 8, 2012, kicking off years of litigation and the eventual divorce. A special court on December 15, 2025, dismissed the man's complaint under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, declaring it to be an “ordinary matrimonial dispute” and a belated attempt to “resurrect” the decade-old grievance.

It also concluded that allegations from the year 2012 were not specific in terms of dates, times and particulars.

The grievances of the complainant

The man claims that he was mistreated for years and that there was a specific incident after the Act of 2016, passed by Parliament, was introduced. He told the court that his former wife had used a derogatory term for his disability and said that marrying him had brought a disaster to her and her family's lives and she and her relatives had threatened to take criminal action against his family and demand a sum of ₹16 lakh. He also claims they sent him defamatory claims to his job, messaged colleagues and senior officers and caused a disturbance at his married sister's home on July 5, 2025.

He filed a police complaint in 2012 and a formal complaint with the Seema Puri police station on 4.10.25. These are accusations; none have gone to trial.

An advocate's note attached to the judgment states that a separate FIR was filed against the complainant and members of his family by the former wife.

The reasoning of the High Court

The special court was only looking at the events of 2012, and it did not take into account the explicit harassment allegations in the following years – including a confrontation in 2025 – Justice Jalan said.

The claims had been broadly referred to in the trial court but the trial court had arrived at its decision on the basis of the claims being limited to the year 2012. The judge emphasised that the High Court had no jurisdiction to determine whether the allegations were true, and the special court should be selective in taking a look at the complaint "as a whole", with the underlying focus of the 2016 law being to protect the complainant.

The other side of the argument

Amicus curiae Manjeet Arya noted that the initial documents were not specific enough and the allegations dated back to 2012, which is before the RPwD Act came into effect. She also acknowledged that the court could have required more clarity, such as by taking pre-summoning evidence. The order of the High Court does not adjudicate upon the respondents' claim and the previous wife and her family are said not to have responded to the High Court's order in the sources checked.

What happens next

The case goes back to the special court where the complaint is to be reconsidered in accordance with the laws of that court. Justice Jalan added that the complainant will still have other statutory avenues to avail himself of such as a separate complaint for events occurring after the original petition was filed. The ruling applies to procedure only – to be sure that the entire complaint is read, not because it is likely to succeed.

Why it matters

The ruling highlights the court's viewpoint in a disability-based complaint within the broader context of an extended family conflict. It indicates that the age of some allegations is not a justification for not dismissing other allegations as continuing and recent.