Quarrels Between Husband & Wife Or Divorce Demands By Husband, His Relatives Not 'Cruelty' As Per S. 498A IPC: Gauhati High Court

A bench of Justice Parthivjyoti Saikia added that the word “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498(A) IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498(A), as it may be different from other statutory provisions.

With this, the court quashed the chargesheet and the proceedings initiated by the woman against her husband and her husband's relatives under Sections 498(A) IPC r/w Section 67 IT Act.

Essentially, it was the case of the woman (Respondent No.2) that she got married to petitioner no. 1 (Abishek Sureka) in February 2012, and soon after marriage, she was mentally tortured by her husband, her parents-in-law and her sister-in-law.

It was her specific claim that the accused persons used to put pressure upon her to divorce her husband, and they used to tell her repeatedly that she was not his choice and he did not want to continue his married life with her. It was also alleged that she developed multiple ailments due to their behaviour.

In her complaint, she also alleged that she received multiple voice calls from Rupesh, a domestic servant employed by the petitioners, during which he made sexual propositions and used vulgar language. As per her case, the petitioners themselves sent the voice notes, as Rupesh was not proficient in using mobile phones.

After the investigation in the case, the police filed the charge sheet under Sections 498(A) IPC r/w Section 67 IT Act against the present petitioners.

In July 2023, the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Tinsukia, took cognizance of the offences against all the petitioners. Challenging the said proceedings, the husband and his relatives moved the HC.

Senior counsel Bhaskar Dutta, appearing for the petitioners, strongly argued that Section 498(A) IPC was inserted into the Code to prevent abuse of married women for want of dowry and since, in the instant case, there is no allegation that dowry was ever demanded, the provision against the petitioners wasn't attracted.

Regarding Section 67 IT Act, Sr Adv Dutta further submitted that there were no materials to attract this provision since in the FIR itself, the woman had claimed that the domestic servant had sent those materials to her mobile phone and not the present petitioners.

On the other hand, Advocate G.N. Sahewalla, appearing for the respondent no. 2 submitted that she deserved to be given an opportunity to prove her case in the trial court and thus, he prayed for dismissing the quashing plea.

Examining the facts of the case as well as the allegations levelled against the petitioners, the Bench noted that in the FIR lodged by Respondent No.2, there were no allegations that the petitioners ever demanded dowry from her.

The Court noted that she had only claimed that her husband did not like her and that his family members were putting pressure upon her to divorce.

So far as the allegation under Section 67 of the IT Act is concerned, the bench noted that the alleged obscene materials came from the mobile phone of Rupesh, but the police did not file the charge sheet against Rupesh.

Against this backdrop, noting that there is no allegation of demand of dowry and that allegation under Section 67 of the IT Act was based on suspicion, the bench allowed the plea and quashed the chargesheet and the entire proceedings.

Case title - Abhishek Sureka and 3 Ors. vs. State of Assam and another

Case citation:

Click Here ToRead/Download Order