Body Shaming By Sister-In-Law Is Prima Facie Wilful Conduct Affecting Mental Health Of Woman To Attract Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Kerala HC
Tellmy Jolly
18 Nov 2024 11:05 AM IST
The Kerala High Court has stated that body shaming of a woman by her sister-in-law would prima facie amount to wilful conduct to cause injury to health of a woman to attract an offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.
In the facts of the case, the sister-in-law had approached the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings against her, stating that she would not come within the term 'relative' under Section 498A to attract an offence of cruelty.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that spouses of siblings who are residing in the matrimonial home would also come under the term relative in Section 498A. The Court stated that:
“when the overt acts herein, at the instance of the petitioner, are evaluated, body shaming and doubting the medical degree of the de facto complainant are the allegations against the petitioner. The overt acts, at the instance of the petitioner, prima facie to be read as wilful conduct which are of such nature to cause injury to the mental and physical health of the woman dealt under explanation (a) to Section 498A of the IPC.”
The petitioner is the third accused who has approached the Court to quash criminal proceedings against her for allegedly committing matrimonial cruelty punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC on the de facto complainant. The first accused is the husband, the father-in-law is arrayed as the second accused and the elder brother's wife is arrayed as the third accused.
The Counsel for Petitioner contended that the brother's wife (sister-in-law) cannot be termed as a relative to attract an offence under Section 498A. Relying upon precedents, it was argued that a relative could only be a person related by blood, marriage or adoption. It was stated that as per Section 176 of the CrPC, relative means, parents, children, brothers, sisters and spouse and nobody else.
The Court stated that the term relative is broad in scope and encompasses members of the Hindu Undivided Family. The Court also referred to the Estate Duty Act, Income Tax Act, and Schedule I of Companies Act to state that the term relative is widened. The Court thus concluded that spouses of siblings who are residing in matrimonial homes would come under the term relative under Section 498A.
Court stated "In such situations, no doubt, the relative of a husband includes the residents at the matrimonial home related to the husband, viz., mother, father, husband or wife of the individual, or a son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece of the individual, or a grandson or grand-daughter of the individual, or the spouse of the siblings of the husband residing at the matrimonial home."
Further, the Court noted that the allegations in the FIS stated that the sister-in-law used to body shame the de facto complainant, criticising her physical appearance by stating that she had no body shape. The Court also took note of the allegations that the sister-in-law remarked that the de facto complainant was unfit to be the wife of the first accused and that he could have married a more beautiful girl.
The Court further noted that the sister-in-law raised doubtful allegations about the educational qualifications of the de facto complainant.
The Court on examining explanation (a) of Section 498A of the IPC stated that wilful conduct that would cause injury to mental or physical health of a woman would constitute cruelty.
As such, the Court stated that the alleged overt acts by the sister-in-law such as body shaming and doubting educational qualifications would prima facie attract an offence of cruelty.
The Court thus dismissed the petition and refused to quash criminal proceedings against the sister-in-law under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates Thareeq Anver K., K.Salma Jennath, K.Shamsudheen, K.C.Khamarunnisa, Rassal Janardhanan A., Arun Chand, Shahnoy Shaji, Govind G. Nair
Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor M P Prasanth, Advocates P S Binu, K Seena
Case Number: CRL.M.C.NO.9443 OF 2022
Case Title: Nimija v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 728
