Introduction:
The Kerala High Court, in XXX v. State of Kerala (BAIL APPL. NO. 2409 OF 2025, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 155), granted bail to a woman accused by her husband of committing aggravated sexual assault on their one-and-a-half-year-old daughter. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while considering the bail application, relied on the Court’s previous ruling in Noushad K. v. State of Kerala and Another (2025), which held that the mere fact that a complainant is a woman does not automatically mean her version must be accepted as the absolute truth. The Court extended the same principle to complaints made by men, observing that allegations against women should not be treated as gospel truth without proper verification. The case involved serious charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, including Sections 8, 7, 10, 9(m), and 9(n), but the Court found that the allegations were based on mere hearsay. The husband, who was the complainant, alleged that another woman informed him about the accused mother’s sexual abuse of their daughter. The Court was deeply concerned that an FIR was registered solely based on hearsay evidence, without any substantial proof. It further noted that a matrimonial dispute and an ongoing custody battle between the parties played a significant role in the allegations. Observing that even the police were uncertain about the allegations, as evident from their report stating that further inquiry was required, the Court held that the case reflected a disturbing trend in matrimonial disputes. Granting bail to the accused mother, the Court directed that if the allegations were found to be false, appropriate action should be taken against the complainant husband.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioner’s counsel, Advocates C.A. Chacko, C.M. Charisma, Babu V.P., and Shahbas Aman C.M., contended that the allegations against the accused were not only baseless but also maliciously motivated by the ongoing custody dispute between the parties. They argued that the FIR was registered without any proper verification of facts and solely based on hearsay. According to them, this case exemplified how matrimonial conflicts and custody battles are increasingly leading to false criminal accusations against spouses. The defense highlighted that there was no direct evidence against the mother, and the prosecution’s case relied entirely on the father’s statement that he had heard the allegations from another woman. The petitioner’s counsel emphasized that such flimsy grounds could not justify keeping the accused mother behind bars under grave charges like those under the POCSO Act. They also brought to the Court’s attention the Kerala High Court’s ruling in Noushad K. (2025), which clarified that complaints by one party should not be blindly accepted as absolute truth without corroboration. The defense further pointed out that the prosecution itself had admitted the need for further inquiry, which meant that the evidence at hand was insufficient even in the eyes of the police. They requested bail, asserting that continuing the incarceration of the accused under such dubious circumstances would be a gross violation of justice.
On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Noushad K.A., argued that allegations under the POCSO Act should be treated with utmost seriousness, given the sensitive nature of the case. The prosecution contended that while the allegations were indeed based on the father’s statement about what he had heard from another woman, the investigation was still at a preliminary stage, and granting bail could impact the probe. The prosecution insisted that the gravity of the alleged offense warranted judicial caution and that it was necessary to allow investigators the time to thoroughly examine the claims before the Court intervened. They argued that the Court should take a cautious approach since the case involved allegations of sexual assault against a minor, a matter that could not be dismissed lightly. However, when questioned about the basis of the FIR, the prosecution conceded that it had been registered solely based on the father’s complaint, without any direct evidence or medical report supporting the accusations. The prosecution also admitted that the investigating officer had submitted a report stating that further inquiry was needed. The Court, taking note of this admission, expressed its deep concern over how the case had been initiated.
Court’s Judgment:
The Kerala High Court, after carefully analyzing the case, granted bail to the petitioner and strongly criticized how the FIR had been registered without any direct evidence. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that the case highlighted the disturbing trend of using criminal allegations as a weapon in matrimonial disputes and custody battles. The Court pointed out that the allegations made by the complainant father were not based on his knowledge but rather on what he had allegedly heard from another woman. This, the Court held, was a classic case of hearsay evidence, which, by itself, could not form the basis for registering an FIR under serious provisions of the POCSO Act. The Court noted that even the police were not convinced about the allegations, as reflected in the investigating officer’s report that further inquiry was needed. Justice Kunhikrishnan remarked that while child sexual abuse cases must be taken seriously, registering an FIR without any substantive evidence could not be justified under any circumstances. He emphasized that the misuse of criminal laws in matrimonial disputes must be curbed, as false allegations not only affect the accused but also undermine genuine cases.
The Court further relied on its decision in Noushad K. v. State of Kerala and Another (2025), reiterating that neither a woman’s complaint nor a man’s complaint could be treated as the gospel truth without verification. Justice Kunhikrishnan stated: “In the order dated 24.02.2025, in B. No.2241 of 2025, this Court observed that there cannot be any unilateral investigation based on the complaint of a lady, treating it as gospel truth. The same principle is applicable vice versa too. The complaint of men against women need not be treated as gospel truth.” This statement underscored the Court’s commitment to ensuring gender-neutral justice and preventing the misuse of legal provisions in matrimonial conflicts.
The judgment also addressed the larger issue of how matrimonial disputes are increasingly leading to the abuse of criminal law. The Court expressed its dismay over the state of family conflicts in society, noting: “Of course, it is a matter of investigation. But, the way the matrimonial disputes are going in our society is shameful to all of us.” The Court emphasized that child abuse allegations, if true, must be dealt with strictly, but at the same time, baseless accusations could not be permitted to destroy the lives of innocent people. The Court held that the mother had made out a prima facie case for bail, as the allegations were entirely unsubstantiated at this stage. Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the petitioner and directed that appropriate action be taken against the complainant husband if the allegations were ultimately found to be false.