![\"\u2018Classic](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-132041410,imgsize-1859084,width-400,height-225,resizemode-75\/img_gavel_2_1_15kn3vj1jpg.jpg\" "\\"Photo")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNew Delhi:<\/span> Refusing to revive criminal proceedings against a woman\u2019s former husband and his relatives in a dowry harassment case, a Delhi court held that the allegations were \u201ccompletely bereft of any specific dates or distinct incidents\u201d and amounted to sweeping, generalised accusations.Calling the implication of the husband\u2019s entire family despite them living separately a \u201cclassic case of over-implication in a matrimonial dispute\u201d, additional sessions judge Harguravinder Singh Jaggi observed that forcing individuals to face trial on vague allegations would amount to an abuse of the legal process.The complainant had alleged that she was subjected to physical and mental torture, abuse, beatings and dowry demands by her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law. She further claimed that her mother-in-law took possession of all her ancestral jewellery and never returned it. The woman also alleged that she was treated like a servant and was frequently locked in a room without food or water.However, the sessions court noted that the trial court had dismissed these allegations, describing them as \u201comnibus despite material statements on record indicating individual roles.\u201dThe defence argued that the complaint was vague and did not disclose any specific demand for dowry. It further contended that the case had been filed in Delhi to harass the accused, who are residents of Rajasthan<\/a>, even though the couple\u2019s divorce had already been finalised by a Jaipur court.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n