S.498A IPC | Case Can Be Filed At A Place Where Wife Resides After Leaving Matrimonial Home On Account Of Cruelty: Orissa HC Reiterates

While terming the aforesaid charge as a ‘continuing offence’, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy observed,

“…the physical acts of cruelty has definite consequence on mental faculty of the victim of torture. Hence, the physical cruelty meted to the wife at her matrimonial home would have an adverse impact and effects on the mental health of the wife at her parental home, especially when the offence U/S. 498-A of IPC is a continuing offence and torture as meted to wife at different place would also torture the wife mentally for a longer period.”

The petitioners (husband and in-laws of the complainant) approached the High Court with a prayer to quash the order of cognizance passed against them for commission of offence under Section 498A, IPC. They also sought to quash the pending criminal proceedings against them for allegedly meting out cruelty on the complainant.

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that all the allegations stated in the FIR had taken place at a far-off place outside the jurisdiction of the aforesaid Court. Therefore, it was argued, entertaining the FIR amounts to an abuse of process of Court for want of jurisdiction. To this effect, decisions of the Apex Court in Manish Ratan & others v. State of M.P. & Anr. and Manoj Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. were relied upon.

On the other side, the State relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in Rupali Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. to submit that since the allegation of torture on the petitioners at matrimonial home has a consequence of mental torture at the current place of residence of the victim, entertaining such FIR at the latter place cannot be considered to be without jurisdiction.

At the outset, the Court noted that neither of the parties have disputed the facts and they only differ on the question of maintainability of the case for want of territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the Court highlighted the following finding of the Supreme Court in Rupali Devi (supra):

“The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498- A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home.”

Therein, the top Court had concluded that Court at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives would also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A.

In the case in hand, the Court observed, the FIR reveals allegation of prima facie mental torture in the parental home, since in the last portion of the FIR records that the lady was bearing torture of husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law and when it became unbearable, she reported the same to the police.

Besides that, the allegation against the husband-petitioner for sending SMS to different girls for marriage proposal prima facie satisfied the Court that the complainant suffered mental torture and such mental torture can be well said to have taken place while she was residing in the parental home.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition holding that the Court where the woman’s parental home is situated possesses jurisdiction to entertain the case under Section 498, IPC.

Case Title: Smt. Geeta Tiwari & Anr. v. State of Orissa & Anr.

Case No.: CRLMC No. 2596 of 2015

Judgment Dated: 16^th January 2023

Coram: G. Satapathy, J.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. D. Moharana, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.S. Pradhan, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State; Mr. B.C. Moharana, Advocate for the O.P. No. 2

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 15