Expecting Educated & Earning Wife To Contribute To Household Expenses Is Not Cruelty: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has quashed cases filed by a wife against her husband and in-laws, accusing them of cruelty under Section 498A the Indian Penal Code, and under various sections of the SC/ST Act and Juvenile Justice Act.

Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta held: "The opposite party no. 2 is an educated and earning woman, and the routine expectations of contributing towards household expenses, making online purchases during the Covid-19 lockdown, or being asked to feed the child by the mother-in-law, cannot, by any stretch, constitute “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A IPC. Likewise, payment of EMIs for a jointly acquired apartment, or the father taking the child outside, are not unusual incidents of domestic life. Where no specific role is attributed to any accused, and allegations lack particulars as to date, time, or manner of commission of offence, continuation of criminal proceedings would operate as prejudice and oppression against the accused."  

Background

The opposite party no. 2 lodged a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Patuli Police Station alleging that she had been married to the petitioner no. 2, and had a daughter from the marriage. It was stated that from the beginning of their conjugal life, she found her husband unsuitable for herself, and her in-laws would verbally abuse her and also mock her for being a member of a 'lower caste.'

lt was stated that when she moved to another house with her husband, the opposite party no. 2 was assaulted by him, and he tried to strangulate her. She stated that the mother-in-law would also force her to feed the child even when she was not hungry.

It was submitted that she was abused by the petitioners "physically, sexually, verbally, economically, and emotionally." They also made unlawful demand for dowry and pressured her to pay the monthly instalment/EMI for repaying the loan, which they had availed of to purchase the apartment.

It was stated that the petitioner No. 2 strangulated the opposite party No. 2 and has also beaten up the child, as a result of which, the opposite party No. 2 suffered from mental trauma. 

Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, Patuli P.S. Case No. 52/2022 dated 15.03.2022 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered.

The petitioners contended that upon receipt of the charge sheet, the Judge took cognizance of the offences mechanically, without adverting to the materials available therein or complying with the mandatory legal requirements. It is urged that the petitioners are innocent, and the allegations are wholly false, frivolous and concocted, instituted solely to harass them for collateral gain.

It was submitted that the allegations are vague and no ingredients are fulfilled either in FIR or in chargesheet against the petitioners. The whole case is based on a concocted story and is liable to be quashed to prevent the gross abuse of law. 

It was further submitted that in order to invoke Section 3 of the SC/ST Act, it is not sufficient that the victim belongs to SC or ST community, but it ought to show that the accused persons committed an offence by humiliation in public view, which did not occur in this case.

Counsel for the opposite party no. 2/complainant opposed the petition and submitted that the complaint lodged on 15 March 2022 clearly disclosed cognisable offences committed by the petitioners. It is alleged that the complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty, misappropriation of her stridhan articles, demands for dowry, attempt to strangulate her, and threats of dire consequences. It is further alleged that her husband and in-laws inflicted cruelty upon her minor child and wilfully humiliated her in public.

Findings

Upon hearing the parties, the court noted that the wife revealed various allegations in her written complaint,even from the beginning of her conjugal life, but she did not mention any time and place.

From the allegations, the court noted that only two particular dates are mentioned. First, on 14.07.2017, when P-2 allegedly assaulted OP-2 and she suffered severe injuries and was treated at the Army hospital and second, in November 2020, when petitioner no. 2 had an altercation with OP-2 and assaulted her, hurting her daughter as well.

However, the court noted that she failed to produce any injury report or treatment papers of the Army hospital or any other hospital during the investigation. This Court also did not find any medical injury report with regard to the allegation of strangulation.

Court noted that she had failed to attribute any offence to a specific person and that the the investigation also failed to disclose even a prima facie case of physical or mental torture for non-fulfilment of dowry demand, or any entrustment or misappropriation of stridhan articles by petitioner no. 1 or the other accused.

It was noted that Section 406 of IPC is inapplicable when all the articles were seized from the residents of the accused persons during investigation. Similarly, Section 506 of IPC is not attracted in the present case since no reliable averments have been made with regard to Section 506 of IPC. It was further held that the comments which the wife was aggrieved by, were made by the mother-in-law, inside the house and not in public view, thereby not being an offence under the SC/ST Act.

Court further noted that independent witnesses had not supported the allegations of quarrel, shouting or breaking door as alleged by the OP-2. Upon perusal of the case diary, no material has been found to substantiate the allegation of humiliation or commission of any offence so as to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the court noted.

It was further noted that the OP-2 had chosen to marry the petitioner after a love relationship and therefore, now potraying him as cruel, unsupportive, etc was not sustainable. The court said.

"It is significant to note that from 2011 until 2022, no complaint was lodged before any authority or police station, notwithstanding her claim that cruelty had been inflicted upon her from the inception of the marriage. She has not specified when such alleged cruelty actually began...the law requires that allegations be clear, specific, and supported with particulars; otherwise, fixing criminal liability becomes wholly unsustainable.

A neighbour, residing on the 2nd floor of the same premises, in his statement under Section 161 CrPC, categorically deposed that though the petitioners and opposite party no. 2 resided on the 3rd floor, he had neither heard any quarrel nor witnessed any assault. He did not notice any matrimonial discord in the married life of the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2.

Consequently, the proceedings in Special Case No. 9/2022 arising out of Patuli P.S. Case No. 52/2022 dated 15.03.2022 under Sections 498A/406/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 3(1)(u) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were quashed for the petitioners.

Case: Dr. Hiralal Konar & Anr. Versus The State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case No: C.R.R. 2329 of 2022

Order to be uploaded shortly