Ulterior Motive Of Pressurizing Man To Consent To Divorce According To Wife’s Terms: SC Quashes Cruelty Case Against Parents-in-Law U/S.498A IPC
The Supreme Court quashed a cruelty case registered at the instance of a woman against her parents-in-law while also observing that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressurizing the man to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant-wife and the proceedings were used as a weapon by her in the personal discord between the couple.
The Apex Court was considering an Appeal challenging the final judgment vide which the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing and setting aside the FIR filed against the husband of the complainant and the present appellants (Parents-in-law of the complainant).
The Division Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai & Justice K.V. Viswanathan noted, “In our view, only stating that cruelty has been committed by the appellants herein due to some reason, would not amount to the offence under Section 498-A of IPC being attracted.”
It was alleged in the FIR that the complainant and son of the appellants were married and after having 2 daughters, the complainant’s husband and the appellants demanded a son from her. They berated her and insulted her and inflicted physical and mental cruelty, stating that she was giving birth to only daughters. Due to the ill-treatment, she began residing separately. It was further alleged that in November 2016, the appellants along with the complainant’s husband visited her in Latur and she was coerced to eat the meal despite her protests. She started bleeding the next day which led to her baby being aborted in her womb. Based on these facts, alleging forced abortion and physical and mental cruelty, the complaint was made.
The appellants along with their son filed a criminal application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for quashing and setting aside the FIR before the High Court. The Family Court granted a decree of Divorce by mutual consent and dissolved the marriage between the complainant and the son of the appellants. The High Court, vide the impugned judgment dismissed the application for quashing of the FIR. Being aggrieved thereby, the appeal was filed before the Apex Court.
It was the case of the appellants that they had no active role to play and they have merely been roped into the complaint as they are the parents-in-law of the complainant. It was their case that the complaint was filed after the notice of Divorce, and it was merely filed to mount the pressure on the appellants and their son. It was further submitted by no opinion was given by the Doctor as to when the pills were ingested and in what form were they ingested. Hence no role of the appellants herein could be established.
The Bench noticed that the son of the appellants, i.e. the former husband of the complainant was also a petitioner in the proceedings before the High Court, which were filed for quashing. He had also filed a separate Special Leave Petition against the same which had been tagged with the present appeal. However, the son of the appellants expired and therefore his appeal was disposed of as abated.
The Bench explained that the ingredients for an offence to be made out under Section 498-A of IPC require that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The second part of this Section refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. “In the present case, no allegations which would fulfil the requirement of the second part are found”, the Bench said.
The Court also stated that the allegations made by the complainant were that in the year 2015, the appellants inflicted mental and physical cruelty upon her as she could not give birth to a male child. Such allegations made by the complainant appeared to be vague as no specific instances of harassment were mentioned. “No specific role or allegation is levelled on either of the appellants and no specific incident of physical or mental cruelty has been mentioned. A mere omnibus statement has been made that the physical and mental cruelty was afflicted because the complainant could not provide a male child”, it added.
It was further explained by the Bench that the ingredients necessary for the offence under Section 312 of the IPC is that the miscarriage must be voluntarily caused and must not be caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman. Section 313 of the IPC states that the offence is attracted if the offence under Section 312 of the IPC is done without the consent of the woman. Through the perusal of the statement of the doctor, it was revealed that the complainant herself stated that the pregnancy was revealed to her when she tested it herself using a pregnancy testing kit and this was stated to be seven days before her visit to the hospital, i.e. on the day of the alleged incident.
Moreover, it was mentioned in the FIR that the appellants brought the poisoned food pre-made from their village and hence, it would mean that they would need to have prior knowledge about the pregnancy of the complainant. No such communication or intimation is alleged by the complainant in the FIR that would even remotely lead to the conclusion that the appellants were aware about the pregnancy of the complainant. The Bench also stated, “It is unusual that when the allegations under Sections 312 and 313 of IPC are levelled against the appellants, such an important fact surrounding her pregnancy and its knowledge to the appellants is not to be found in the FIR.”
It was also surprising that despite the complainant taking such drastic steps of moving out of the matrimonial home, she did not file the present FIR for another six months after the notice of Divorce was sent. Moreover, the notice of Divorce was completely silent about the allegations raised in the FIR which was subsequently filed. The notice of Divorce on the other hand contained allegations relating to the demand of money and jewellery from the complainant by the son of the appellants. No allegation of cruelty or the miscarriage allegedly caused by the appellants was raised.
“These facts lead us to conclude that the proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive of pressurizing the son of the appellant herein to consent to the divorce according to the terms of the complainant and the proceedings were used as a weapon by the complainant in the personal discord between the couple”, it held.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench quashed the Proceedings against the appellants.
Cause Title: X v. State of Maharashtra & Another (Neutral Citaiton: 2024 INSC 1019)