Ousting Woman From Matrimonial Home Over Dowry Is Mental Cruelty, Continuous Offence With Fresh Cause Of Action Each Day: MP High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently underscored that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home for less dowry would amount to mental cruelty.The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia added that the same would constitute a continuous offence which gives the aggrieved woman a fresh cause of action every day from there on.“It is true that there may not be...
Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently underscored that compelling a married woman to live in her parental home for less dowry would amount to mental cruelty.
The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia added that the same would constitute a continuous offence which gives the aggrieved woman a fresh cause of action every day from there on.
“It is true that there may not be any physical cruelty after the separation but under section 498-A of IPC, cruelty may be of mental or physical. If a lady has been ousted from her matrimonial house, then certainly it will have impact on her mind amounting to mental cruelty….then it would become a continuous offence and every day would give a fresh cause of action”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur noted in the order.
Reference was made to Rupali Devi v. State of UP (2019) and Amar Singh v. Smt. Vimla (2021) before the court went on to hold that each day after the woman gets ousted from her matrimonial home gives rise to a fresh cause of action, on account of the mental cruelty she is being subjected to, and hence the F.I.R. is not barred by limitation.
The F.I.R. was filed by the wife allegedly three years after the separation; the complaint filed in 2021 stated that her husband, mother-in-law and relatives subjected her to torture, including physical and mental cruelty, for bringing less dowry. Her husband and mother-in-law allegedly used to beat her up by demanding an additional Rs 10 lakhs.
The allegations of physical cruelty meted out by the mother-in-law is sufficient for the prosecution of offences mentioned in the F.I.R., the court opined. The court opined that there is sufficient material available against the husband as well for warranting prosecution.
The court observed that merely because the F.I.R was filed after the divorce proceedings commenced, allegedly as a counterblast, cannot be grounds to quash the F.I.R registered against the husband and mother-in-law under Section 498-A IPC, 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Even otherwise, delay in lodging F.I.R in itself won't be a ground to quash criminal proceedings, the court iterated the established principle.
The marriage between the wife and first petitioner was solemnised in 2017 and a two-year-old daughter was born out of the said wedlock.
“…The delay will assume importance only when the complainant fails to give a plausible explanation and whether there was any plausible explanation or not, can be decided by the Trial Court only after recording the evidence”, the single judge bench added in the order.
The allegations against other relatives were held to be not specific and the F.I.R. lodged against them was quashed by the High Court. The court also disapproved of the increasing tendency in society to over-implicate the near relatives of the husband so as to pressurize the husband.
For Petitioners: Advocate Vikas Mishra
For Respondent 1: Advocate Dilip Parihar
For Respondent No.2 (Complainant): Advocate Ajay Sen
Case No: Misc. Criminal Case No. 18576 of 2022
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 59