Bombay High Court denied access to grant shelter under sec 498-A
Introduction:
Since long ages, it has been a trend in Indian society to demand from the daughter’s parents at the time of weeding, either directly or in the form of gifts or property. And even in the present scenario, this is the case where the daughters are demanded to bring money or property even after marriage and if she won’t the under such circumstances she would be harassed up to the level that she commits suicide. And to prevent such dower death sec 498 A was inserted in IPC which states:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine”.
The Bombay High Court interpreted this section, according to which mere demand of money or property without any force or harassment would not allow registration of an offense under sec. 498 A of IPC. The Bench comprising of Justice Ranjit More and Justice NJ Jamadar gave such statement while hearing a criminal writ petition filed by relatives of one Krishna Lohiya whose wife Priyanka (respondent one) had filed an FIR against them.
Case History:
This case was filed before the High Court under article 226 of the Indian Constitution for quashing the FIR so launched by the respondent i.e. by the wife against Krishna under article 482 of CrPC.
In this case the according to the wife the husband’s (petitioner) family member was responsible for causing her mental torture. She alleged that the relatives of husband use to insult her often by calling her dark and fat and also infertile, and moreover they demand from her during occasions to bring money from her parents. According to her father from the time of marriage till present time has spent 7 cr. which her husband was demanding from her father from for property purchase and other such matters.
While according to the petitioners, both the married couple were living separately after 1 year of marriage, as due to the fighting nature of Krishna’s wife. Krishna’s family comprised of a widowed mother and her sister who before marriage were living together, but marriage due to the quarrels and his wife’s they started living separately. They use to visit their matrimonial home occasionally. However, it was also admitted that Krishna’s relative use to visit the respondent one and use to call her infertile.
After listening to the facts of the case, the court was of the view that:
- Considering the allegations so made, the first one i.e. of insulting her by calling her dark and fat were of the general nature and also stale, as after one year of the marriage she shifted to another house, and therefore such allegations were not often.
- The second allegation so made that all family members of Krishna were demanding money, clothes and ornaments of festive occasions are also general nature and bereft of a specific instance.
- The third allegation was of calling her infertile which is omnibus and is a matter of fact that petitioners and first respondent have been living separately. And therefore the said factor erodes the credibility of the general allegations in the absence of such specific reference to a person, time and place.
And therefore, the petitioner contended that taking of shelter under sec 498A of IPC was to harass and humiliate the petitioners as they were in relations to Krishna. And further prosecuting this case would be an abuse of process of law and compelling them to undergo the trial.
Held:
After hearing the submissions, court observed, “To fall within the tentacles of section 498A, the married woman must have been subjected to cruelty which would drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health, or with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of property. Mere demand for money or property, unaccompanied by any harassment, would also not fall within the mischief of section 498A. There has to be a nexus between the demand and the consequent harassment.”[1]
Submitted by
Student Reporter
Sakshi Raje
[1] https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/mere-demand-of-money-unaccompanied-by-any-harassment-would-not-fall-within-the-mischief-of-498-a-bombay-hc-read-judgment-147738