Married Woman Being Asked To Do Household Work Does Not Mean She Is Treated Like Maid Servant: Bombay High Court

"If a married lady is asked to do household work definitely for the purpose of the family, it cannot be said that it is like a maid servant. If she had no wish to do her household activities, then she ought to have told it either prior to the marriage so that the bride-groom can rethink about the marriage itself or if it is after marriage, then such problem ought to have been sorted out earlier", the court stated.

A division bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rajesh S. Patil of the Aurangabad bench was dealing with an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR filed by a woman against her husband and his family members.

The applicants were booked for offences punishable under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband and relatives, 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

Details of the FIR

According to the wife's FIR, she was treated properly for a month after marriage and then she was treated like a maid servant. Her husband's family demanded Rs. 4 lakhs from her father for purchasing a four-wheeler. When she said that her father can't afford it, her husband mentally and physically harassed her, it was alleged.

The husband's family took her to a doctor for the birth of a son. The doctor said that the gestation period is not complete. Thereafter her mother-in-law and sister-in-law assaulted her and accused her of defrauding them, she further said.

Her mother-in-law and sister-in-law went to her father's house and told her that she would be allowed to cohabit only if Rs 4 lakh is paid. They also assaulted her at the time, the FIR stated.

Contentions of the parties

Advocate Sagar Bhingare for the husband and his family members submitted that the wife had filed multiple complaints against her former husband and his family as well. The complaints were either withdrawn or the accused were acquitted. These cases show that the wife is habituated of making such allegations.

Bhingare further submitted that the marriage happened on December 12, 2019 and the wife lodged report on September 9, 2020. The alleged incident at her father's house happened on June 27, 2020. It is hard to believe that such an incident would have happened within 5-6 months of the marriage. Further, the husband purchased four-wheeler of over 17 lakhs on February 28, 2020. Hence, there is no question of demanding money from wife's father to purchase a car.

APP S. J. Salgare for the state as well as the advocate for the wife submitted that the investigation has been done and evidence has come hence this is not a fit case to quash the FIR.

Court's observations

The court noted that the wife's FIR vaguely states that she was treated like a maid servant after being treated properly for a month. The court further said that she has not given the details of the alleged mental and physical harassment faced by her.

"Mere use of the word harassment "mentally and physically" are not sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC", the court stated. The court added that it cannot be determined whether the acts of the accused constitute cruelty unless those acts are described.

The court further noted that the wife did not specifically state in her FIR that she came to know that she is pregnant. Unless she was pregnant, there is no question of completion of the pregnancy and delivery of the child. The court said that these things seem to be intentionally kept vague. No details of the assault by the husband saying that she cheated them have been given in the FIR, the court noted. When such omnibus allegations are made, it does not attract the ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC, the court held.

The court further observed that the evidence does not show why the wife went to her parental home and why she kept quiet for more than two months to lodge the report if the alleged assault by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law happened at her father's house.

The court said that just because she had filed complaints against the earlier husband and his family, that does not mean that she is habituated of levelling such allegations and extracting money. However, in this case, the allegations of the wife against her husband and in-laws and the evidence is not sufficient prima facie to attract section 498A of IPC, the court held.

"The allegations those have been made and the collection of evidence is not sufficient even at this prima facie stage to attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, further as regards offence under Section 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is concerned, it is in fact already conferred under Section 498-A of IPC and unless those other offences are shown which would amount to "cruelty", offence under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be made out and, therefore, it would be a futile exercise to ask the applicants to face the trial."

With the above observations, the court set aside the FIR and the proceedings pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nanded against the husband and his family members.

Case no. – Criminal Application No. 40 of 2021

Case title – Sarang Diwakar Amle & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Citation- 2022 LiveLaw (Bom) 415