Not Allowing Daughter-In-Law To Watch TV, Meet Neighbours, Go To Temple Alone & Making Her Sleep On Carpet Is Not Cruelty: Bombay High Court

Quashing a 20-year-old order convicting a man and his family for cruelty towards his deceased wife, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court said that the allegations of taunting the deceased, not allowing her to watch TV, not allowing her to go alone to the temple and making her sleep on a carpet would not constitute the offence of cruelty under IPC Section 498A, as none of these actions were “severe.” In doing so, the high court observed that the nature of allegations would not constitute physical and mental cruelty as the allegations pertained to the domestic affairs of the house of accused. The high court acquitted the man and his family (parents and brother) convicted under IPC sections 498A as well as 306 (abetment to suicide). The trial court had convicted the man and his family for these offences, against which they appealed before the high court. A single judge bench of Justice Abhay S Waghwase in its October 17 order noted that the major allegations of the appellants meting the deceased with cruelty were by taunting her for the meals that she prepared, not allowing her to watch TV, not letting her to meet neighbours or even to go to temple alone, making her sleep on a carpet, to go alone to throw garbage. Further, the allegations included the one wherein the family members of the deceased woman claimed that she was compelled to fetch water at midnight.However, the judge noted from the testimony of the witnesses, that the village (Varangaon) where the deceased and her in-laws lived, usually got water supply at the midnight and all the households there, daily fetched water at 1:30 AM in the night.It said, "Informant levelled general allegations that, her deceased daughter was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. Similar allegations are also levelled by uncle regarding humiliation, making her fetch water at 1:30 a.m., disliking meals, taunting, not allowing to watch T.V. along with others. Even aunt...deposed about above behavior...It is admitted by witnesses that, in Varangaon, water supply is made at late night and therefore when the entire village is required to fetch water after 1:00 a.m., there is nothing unusual to expect deceased to fetch water at 1:30 a.m. or 1:00 a.m.They are all levelling allegations of taunting, not allowing to watch T.V., not allowing to go alone temple, but in the considered opinion of this court, none of the allegations has any severity or such nature of allegations would not constitute physical and mental cruelty as almost allegations are pertaining to domestic affairs of the house of accused".Referring to the settled legal position on IPC Section 498A the court observed that the allegations made against the man and his family would not constitute an offence under the provision. It further said, "Merely sleeping on carpet also would not amount to cruelty. Similarly, what sort of taunting was made and by which accused is not getting clear. Likewise, preventing her to mix with neighbour also cannot be termed as harassment". It further said that cruelty can be either mental or physical, however it is difficult to put the term in a "straitjacket" by means of a definition as it is relative. As per the prosecution case, the deceased and the appellant were married on December 24, 2002. It was the prosecution's case that the man and his family ill-treated deceased and subjected her to cruelty and harassment and because of this treatment the deceased committed suicide on May 1, 2002. Based on the evidence on record, in April 2004 a trial court in Jalgaon district, convicted the in-laws and the husband under sections 498A and 306 of the IPC.In its order, the bench noted from the testimony of the deceased woman's mother, uncle and aunt that she visited their place (her parental house) in March 2003 during Holi and had committed suicide on May 1, 2003. "There is a gap of almost two months since deceased, complainant and witnesses met each other. They (mother, uncle and aunt of deceased) have admitted that, there was no communication from deceased either written or oral, she has not conveyed that there was any instances of cruelty in proximity to suicide. There is no evidence to show that at that relevant point or any proximity to the suicide, there was any demand, cruelty or mal-treatment so as to connect them with the suicidal death. What triggered the suicide has remained a mystery," the high court said. It further observed that even though there was no evidence that conduct of accused towards deceased was "incessant or consistent", the trial court had appeared to have said that "ill treatment became intolerable to her and therefore she committed suicide". These observations, the high court said, "are out of place" and are not based on strong foundation. Allowing the appeal, the high court quashed and set aside the conviction of the appellants. Case title: X v/s State of MaharashtraCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 578Counsel for the appellants: Advocate Joydeep Chatterji...

Not Allowing Daughter-In-Law To Watch TV, Meet Neighbours, Go To Temple Alone & Making Her Sleep On Carpet Is Not Cruelty: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

Tags