Body Shaming By Sister-In-Law To Cause Injury To Mental & Physical Health Of Woman Amounts To Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court held that if a sister-in-law does body shaming to cause injury to the mental and physical health of a woman, it amounts to Cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court held thus in a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed to quash the case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate against the accused.
A Single Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “… when the overt acts herein, at the instance of the petitioner, are evaluated, body shaming and doubting the medical degree of the de facto complainant are the allegations against the petitioner. The overt acts, at the instance of the petitioner, prima facie to be read as wilful conduct which are of such nature to cause injury to the mental and physical health of the woman dealt under explanation (a) to Section 498A of the IPC.”
Advocate Thareeq Anver K. represented the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth represented the Respondents.
In this case, the prosecution alleged the commission of offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of IPC by the accused. The marriage of the accused husband and the complainant was solemnised in 2019 and the allegation was that after the marriage, while the complainant was staying at the matrimonial home, she was subjected to persecution by the accused husband, accused father-in-law, and the accused sister-in-law.
While seeking quashment of proceedings, the counsel for the Petitioner pointed out two legal aspects. The first point was that since the sister-in-law was the wife of the accused’s elder brother, she would come under the purview of the term ‘relative’ under Section 498A of IPC. It was further argued that in the pari materia provision viz., Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) also, the same definition is engrafted.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “When the married woman starts to reside at the matrimonial home, where the siblings of the husband are also residing along with their spouses, it cannot be held that the spouses of the siblings would not fall under the definition of ‘relative’ for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC. In such situations, no doubt, the relative of a husband includes the residents at the matrimonial home related to the husband, viz., mother, father, husband or wife of the individual, or a son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece of the individual, or a grandson or grand-daughter of the individual, or the spouse of the siblings of the husband residing at the matrimonial home.”
The Court added that, it could not be held in this case that the accused/Petitioner, who is the wife of the elder brother of the accused husband, would not come within the purview of the term ‘relative’ dealt under Section 498A of the IPC and this challenge is found to be in the negative.
“What are the overt acts which constitute cruelty for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC, is to be gathered from the explanation (a) and (b) to Section 498A of the IPC. Explanation (a) provides that, any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, is cruelty. Similarly, explanation (b) provides that, harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand, is cruelty”, it further noted.
The Court observed that in order to bring home an offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the above ingredients shall be satisfied and if some overt acts which would not in any way be likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, the same would not come within the definition of cruelty dealt under Section 498A of the IPC.
“Similarly, harassment of a woman by the relative without any element of coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand also would not come under the definition cruelty for the purpose of Section 498A of the IPC”, it said.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition and refused to quash the proceedings.
Cause Title- ABC v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:85565)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Thareeq Anver K., K. Salma Jennath, K. Shamsudheen, K.C. Khamarunnisa, Rassal Janardhanan A., Arun Chand, Shahnoy Shaji, and Govind G. Nair.
Respondents: Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth, Advocates P.S. Binu, and K. Seena.