The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has observed that a married woman being asked to do household work for the family cannot claim that she has been treated like a maid servant, and that the same does not amount to cruelty towards her.
The Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rajesh S. Patil noted that if the woman did not wish to do household activities, she should have told the groom’s side before the marriage, so that they could rethink about the wedding itself or if it was after marriage, then such problem should have been sorted out earlier.
Quashing the first information report (FIR) registered against the husband and in-laws for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the High Court observed that mere use of the word harassment ‘mentally and physically’ was not sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC.
It said the collection of evidence with regards to the allegations was not sufficient even at this prima facie stage to attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
With regards to offence under Section 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, it was in fact already conferred under Section 498-A of IPC and unless those other offences were shown which would amount to cruelty, offence under Section 498-A of IPC could not be made out, added the Bench.
It ruled that unless such acts were described, they could not be amounted to causing harassment or subjecting a person to cruelty.
While setting aside the criminal proceedings pending before the in-laws and the husband before a local Judicial Magistrate, the High Court allowed the petition filed by the husband, observing that it would be a futile exercise to ask the petitioner to face the trial.
A woman had lodged a complaint against her in-laws and husband, alleging that she was treated properly for a month after marriage, but thereafter, both her husband and in-laws treated her like a maid servant.
She had claimed that a month after marriage, her in-laws and husband started demanding Rs four lakh for purchasing a four-wheeler. The woman further claimed that her husband harassed her physically and mentally for the same.
She also filed a case against husband under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC.
The husband moved the High Court for quashing of cases, claiming that the complaint was a concocted version of the events.
It was also pointed out that the woman was earlier married to another man and had filed similar complaints against him and his family members too, in which all of them were acquitted.
The Bench ruled that those earlier complaints could not be a reason to conclude that the wife had a habit of levelling allegations and extracting money and such submission advanced by the husband would have to be proved by him.
(Case title: Sarang Diwakar Amle & Ors. vs State of Maharashtra & Anr)