[Matrimonial Disputes] Evidence Of Woman's Family Members Cannot Be Brushed Aside Merely Because They Are Interested Parties: Madras HC

Justice P Velmurugan observed that in these types of matters, it is the family members who can notice the incidents and come forward to give evidence since a third party may not interfere in such matters thinking that it's a family dispute.

It is to be noted that in the matrimonial disputes, only the family members can notice the incidents, which occurred in the home i.e. within the four wall and they can only come forward to give evidence and the third party, even if they also know, will not be ready to give evidence and they would think that it is a family dispute and the husband and wife will quarrel each other today and tomorrow would join together why should they poke their nose unnecessarily in the family dispute especially between the husband and wife.

The court was dealing with an appeal filed by the husband who was convicted under Section 498A of IPC. His family members, who were initially charged with a similar offense, were acquitted by the lower court citing a lack of sufficient evidence. The appellant-husband contended that the trial was improper and that there was no fair investigation. He submitted that there were contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It was also submitted that the complaint was not lodged immediately after the occurrence.

To this, the court observed that mere non-production of a medical certificate or not lodging of the complaint soon after the occurrence was not fatal to the case of the prosecution, especially in matrimonial disputes. This was because a newly married girl will not immediately rush to the police station to lodge a complaint in a quarrel as she would take time to settle the issues instead.

In the present case, the wife and her relatives had categorically stated and corroborated the incidents and the cruelty caused by the appellant-husband. Thus, after re-visiting the entire evidence, the court found the appellant guilty and upheld the order of the trial court.

Case Title: P Senthil v. State

Case No: Crl A No. 41 of 2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 419

Counsel for Appellant: Mr.K.Balakrishnan

Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Sugendran, Additional Public Prosecutor