Keeping A Young Child Away From Mother Is Mental Harassment Amounting To Cruelty: Bombay HC Upholds FIR U/s. 498A IPC Against In-Laws
The Bombay High Court has upheld an FIR registered by a wife against her in-laws while holding that keeping a young child from her mother is mental harassment amounting to cruelty.
The Court dismissed a Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR and criminal proceedings in a dowry harassment case against the mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law (Applicants) accused under Sections 323, 498-A, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit W. Joshi held, “Keeping a young child of four years old away from her mother in defiance of Court order also amounts to mental harassment amounting to cruelty in as much as it would certainly cause grave injury to mental health of respondent No.2, mother of the child. Such act of the in-laws amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) to Section 498-A of IPC. We further record that the said mental harassment is continuing from day to day till date. It is a continuing wrong.”
Advocate Milind K. Deshpande appeared for the Applicants, while APP G.A. Kulkarni represented the Respondents.
The wife had alleged repeated harassment and cruelty from her husband and in-laws. The FIR accused the Applicants and the husband of demanding Rs. 10 lakhs for purchasing a car. When the demand was unmet, the wife alleged that she was subjected to abuse and eventually driven out of her matrimonial house.
The wife further alleged that her in-laws forcibly retained custody of her four-year-old daughter, Abha, despite a Family Court order granting her custody.
During hearings, the Applicants claimed they were unaware of the husband’s whereabouts and had not filed a missing person report, raising concerns about their intent.
However, the High Court remarked, “It is hard to believe that the applicants are not aware about whereabouts of their son and have still not taken any steps to find him. It appears that as a matter of strategy, husband is not coming before the Court in order to keep custody of his daughter in defiance to the order of custody passed by the Competent Court.”
The Bench stated that the parties, who do not have regard for judicial orders passed by the Competent Court of law, are not entitled to invoke our jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
The Court also pointed out that “the daughter…, who is now only around four years old is kept away from her. A judicial order passed by the Competent Court of law is also not being obeyed. Although, the daughter is with husband, we have already recorded above that the applicants herein are assisting his husband in the sense that his whereabouts are not being disclosed…We are therefore of the opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising our inherent jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in order to quash the criminal prosecution against the applicants.”
Consequently, the Court held, “Schizophrenia affects behavior of patient intermittently for certain duration of time. It is not a constant medical condition…We do not deem it appropriate to quash proceedings against her on the ground that she is allegedly suffering from schizophrenia. Accordingly.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Criminal Application.
Cause Title: R & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:29156-DB)
Appearance:
Applicants: Advocate Milind K. Deshpande
Respondents: APP G.A. Kulkarni; Advocate Hrishikesh V. Tunkar
