Supreme Court Quashes S.498A IPC Case Filed By Wife Against Parents-in-Law 'With Ulterior Motive' To Force Husband To Consent For Divorce
The Supreme Court today (Dec. 20) quashed a domestic cruelty case under Section 498A IPC against the husband's parents which was registered with an ulterior motive by the daughter-in-law to force their son to consent to divorce.
“These facts lead us to conclude that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressurizing the son of the appellant herein to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant and the proceedings were used as a weapon by the complainant in the personal discord between the couple.”, the court said.
The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing the Appellant's challenge to the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench decision which refused to quash the criminal case against the Appellants.
The Complainant alleged that her husband's parents (Appellants) caused her miscarriage by forcing her to consume adulterated food. She also alleged mental and physical cruelty by the Appellants for not bearing a male child. Apart from 498A, offences under Sections 312/313 (causing miscarriage) of the Indian Penal Code were also alleged.
However, the complaint regarding the miscarriage and cruelty was made to the police only two years after the date of the incident, and there was no evidence to suggest that the appellants knew of the complainant's pregnancy or administered any substances to cause the miscarriage.
Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Gavai emphasized that a mere allegation of cruelty would not be an offence unless such cruelty was “done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself.”
The Court observed that the allegations against the appellants were vague and omnibus, lacking specific details of instances of cruelty or misconduct.
“In the present case, the allegations levelled in the FIR do not reveal the existence of any such allegations. The only allegation that referred to an injury being inflicted against the complainant is a vague statement that the son of the appellants herein used to beat her, but there is no specific allegation of any such injury being caused by the appellants herein.”, the court said.
The Court doubted the motive of the complainant to not include the particulars of the offence of cruelty or miscarriage in the divorce proceedings initiated by her. According to the court, the delay of nearly two years in registering the FIR raised doubts about the complainant's motives. The Court inferred that the FIR was filed as a retaliatory measure to pressurize the appellants' son during the divorce proceedings.
The judgment cited the recent judgment in Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others vs. State of Telangana which expressed concerns about the misuse of Section 498A. Reference was also made to Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda and Others v. State of Gujarat which discussed the ingredients of Section 498A.
The Court held that mere 'cruelty' is not enough to constitute the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. "It must be done with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself," the Court said.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the pending case was quashed.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shirish K. Deshpande, AOR Ms. Rucha Pravin Mandlik, Adv. Mr. Mohit Gautam, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rishi Didwania, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Prachiti Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Prachiti Deshpande, Adv. Dr. R. R. Deshpande, AOR Mr. Bhagwanr Deshpande, Adv.
Case Title: DIGAMBAR AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1025
Click here to read/download the judgment
Related Reports: S.498A IPC : How Supreme Court Raised Concerns About Misuse Of Anti-Dowry & Cruelty Laws Over Years