Law relating to Curelty


You will find here the law points along with case law relating to Cruelty.

 

O.P. SHEORAN & ASSOCIATES

(Law Firm)

111, SHIV NAGAR - II, MURLIPURA

SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR (RAJASTHAN)

Website:- www.stlegal.in

Email:  This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.  

Contact Us : 0141-2262495/ Mob: +91-9950984566

Practicing at: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JAIPUR

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAW RELATING TO CRUELTY IN INDIA WITH CASE LAWS 

 

PRITAM ASHOK SADAPHULE AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A – Quashing of Proceedings – Complaint made against husband, and his father, mother, brother and sister and FIR registered u/s 498-A – On perusal of the allegations from the complaint of respondent no.2 there can be no doubt whatsoever, that the allegations levelled against appellant nos. 2 to 5 do not justify any inference, which would lead to the conclusion, that they could be held responsible, for an offence in the nature of Section 498A IPC – FIR and the proceedings that may have arisen therefrom, including the charge sheet against appellant nos. 2 to 5 liable to be quashed – Prayer made for quashing of the proceedings against appellant no.1-husband declined.

 

RAMCHANDER Vs. ANANTA

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 13(1)(i-a) and 13(1)(i-b) – Divorce – Ground of Mental Cruelty and Desertion – Decree of divorce passed by the trial Court set aside by High Court – Instances of mental cruelty pleaded by the appellant the defendant- wife did not like to live in the joint family, the defendant-wife used to abuse him as ‘Dhobi’ and the son as ‘Dhobi’s son’, defendant-wife was reluctant to do any household work and was not cooking food for the plaintiff and the child which necessitated the bringing of food from outside not substantiated hence rightly set aside by High Court – The aberration on the part of the wife in filing case u/s 498A has been condoned by the husband by resuming cohabitation and they continued to live together till the date of alleged separation in 2003 – Allegation made by the wife that he has been involved in an extra marital affair with the daily rated mazdoor lady working under him – Mere failure to prove such allegation would not entitle the husband to a decree of divorce as rightly held by the High Court – The conduct of the wife that had been complained of appears to be not so grave and weighty that it can be treated to be more serious than ordinary wear and tear of married life – The trial court has not indicated with any clarity in its judgment as to how the testimonies of the witnesses with regard to desertion were not found reliable by it – The High Court on going through their testimonies has concluded that it does not find their evidence unworthy of credence – Held that the ground of desertion alleged is also not established – Contention on behalf of the appellant that the marriage between the plaintiff and defendant has irretrievably broken down repelled – Appeal liable to be dismissed.

 

GHUSABHAI RAISANGBHAI CHORASIYA & ORS. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A and 306 – Abetment of suicide – Cruelty – Extra marital relationship by husband – Held that the first limb of Section 498A, which refers to cruelty, has nothing to do with demand of dowry – In the present case, in fact, there is no demand of dowry -The deceased was pained and disturbed as the husband was having an illicit affair with the appellant no.4 – The husband and the wife had started living separately in the same house and the deceased had told her sister that there was severance of status and she would be going to her parental home after the ‘Holi’ festival -There is some evidence about the illicit relationship and even if the same is proven, cruelty, as envisaged under the first limb of Section 498A IPC would not get attracted – It would be difficult to hold that the mental cruelty was of such a degree that it would drive the wife to commit suicide – Mere extra-marital relationship, even if proved, would be illegal and immoral, but it would take a different character if the prosecution brings some evidence on record to show that the accused had conducted in such a manner to drive the wife to commit suicide – In the instant case, the accused may have been involved in an illicit relationship with the appellant no.4, but in the absence of some other acceptable evidence on record that can establish such high degree of mental cruelty, the Explanation to Section 498A which includes cruelty to drive a woman to commit suicide, would not be attracted – On the basis of the said evidence, it is difficult to sustain the conviction under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.

 

KUDRAT ALI (MD.) & ORS. Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.498A r/w s.34 – Cruelty – Conviction – Validity – Neighbourers made specific statement that they often found accused No.1 to physically assault his wife i.e. the deceased – PWs 3, 4, 5 and 11 made clear and categorical statement that on the date of death of deceased at about 8.00 A.M. three convict-appellants physically assaulted deceased and thereafter deceased went out of house with her minor son and she committed suicide taking poison in front of house of one ‘A’ – Held, act of accused persons clearly comes within purview of Explanation (a) to s.498A IPC – Trial Court rightly held that accused persons are guilty of committing offence punishable u/s.498A IPC – However, considering the fact that deceased left behind three children who are with accused No.1 and two other accused convicts are nephew and wife of nephew of accused No.1, thus, sentence may be reduced – Accused No.1 & 2 sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000 each – Accused No.3, being woman be released on probation – Appeal dismissed

 

SHIKHA Vs. JASVINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, s.13 – Divorce – Cruelty – Desertion – Adultery – Divorce petition filed by husband was allowed by trial Court – Appeal thereagainst by wife – All allegations made by respondent No.1/husband regarding cruelty, desertion and adultery are admitted by appellant because no cross-examinations was conducted on those points – Perusal of judgment of trial Court shows that evidence was properly scrutinized and appreciated and each aspect was dealt with rightly – Evidence on record also shows that appellant/wife had filed petition u/s.125 Cr.P.C. claiming maintenance for herself and her son – In that petition as well, husband, i.e. respondent No.1, mentioned about adulterous life of appellant and Court came to conclusion from evidence led by parties that it was appellant who had willfully deserted her husband and, therefore, she had no right to claim maintenance – Held, there is no infirmity in order passed by trial Court – Appeal dismissed.

 

JASVIR KAUR Vs. HARJINDER SINGH

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, s.13(1)(i-a) & (i-b) – Divorce – Cruelty – Desertion – Divorce petition filed by wife dismissed by trial Court – Appeal there against – Appeal was heard ex parte against respondent/husband, who had refused to accept notice sent by appellate Court – It is, thus, clear that he is not bothered about result of appeal – He did not say before trial Court that he was willing to keep appellant as his wife nor he appeared before appellate Court to contest appeal – It seems that he has contested petition before trial Court just for sake of harassing appellant and without any intention to rehabilitate her – If he intended to live with his wife, he would have come forward to contest appeal as well – Held, judgment and decree passed by trial Court are reversed – Marriage between parties is dissolved by decree of divorce – Appeal allowed.

 

 

BALJINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Penal Code, 1860, Section 304B, 498-A – Dowry death – Cruelty – Reduction in sentence – Plea that an isolated instance of demand of dowry about four months prior to death cannot be said to constitute proximate live link to the death to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC upheld – Held that in cases related to dowry death, the circumstances showing the cruelty or harassment are not restricted to a particular instance, but normally refer to a course of conduct – Such conduct of cruelty or dowry harassment must be “soon before death – There should be a perceptible nexus between her death and the dowry related harassment or cruelty inflicted on her – The alleged demand of gold karra about two months after the marriage cannot be said to constitute a proximate live link with the death of deceased and the conviction of the appellant under Section 304B IPC cannot be sustained – Evidence on record makes out an offence under Section 498A IPC -The occurrence was of the year 1997 – The appellant is having three grown up children – The appellant has already undergone sentence for a period of about fifteen months -The conviction under Section 498A sustained and she is sentenced to undergo imprisonment already undergone.

 

PATEL MAHESHBHAI RANCHODBHAI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

The accused have failed to discharge the burden upon them to explain the death of the deceased. On the contrary, they admitted that the death of the deceased was a suicidal one. In ordinary circumstances, the lady having a female child of two years, would not resort to suicide only because her husband stated to her that it would take little time to take her to Africa along with him. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the High Court, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the appellants committed not only the offence under Section 498A but also under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

 

VIDHYA VISWANATHAN Vs. KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN

Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts mental cruelty to such spouse….. Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty….. we do not find any ground to interfere with the decree of divorce passed by the High Court on the ground of cruelty. However, we are conscious of the fact that the appellant, as stated by her, was doing a job before her marriage, and she (Vidhya Vishwanathan) has stated as D.W.1 that at present she is not doing any work. As such we think it just and proper to direct the respondent to pay to the appellant (wife) one time lump sum amount of alimony. We are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the economic status of the parties, a direction to the respondent to pay Rs.40 lakhs (Rupees forty lakhs only) as one time alimony to the appellant, would meet the ends of justice.

 

ROSAMMA KURIAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 498A – Cruelty – Conviction set aside – Appeal against conviction of mother in law of deceased for cruelty but acquittal in offence of abetment of suicide – No specific allegation that accused had made demands or coerced deceased to bring more money or gold ornaments from her parental home – The three complaints namely; that she was asked to bring water from ‘Oli’, a natural stream which is only about 15 metres away from her house; that she was asked to wash the clothes of her parents and that she was also not allowed to have a lengthy conversation with her husband over phone are not instances which can by themselves constitute acts of cruelty.

 

RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

Criminal P. C. (2 of 1974), S. 401 – Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss. 406, 498-A – Cruelty – Acquittal upheld – Revision against acquittal by appeal court – Dowry demand after one and half month of marriage but complaint after five years – No convincing explanation given for such delay – Meantime wife blessed with two children – Admission by prosecution witness during cross examination regarding demand of transferring land in name of wife – None of prosecution witnesses attended Panchayat held on said issue even failed to identify place of Panchayat – No challenge to acquittal by trial court for breach of trust – Prosecution did lack in credence – Acquittal upheld.