Compelling Married Woman To Leave Her Matrimonial House On Account Of Less Dowry Is Cruelty U/S 498A IPC: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that compelling a married woman to leave her matrimonial house and to live in her parental home on account of less dowry would traumatize her and it amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
The wife had accused her husband and her in-laws of mentally and physically harassing her for demand of dowry. She subsequently started living at her parental house after being ousted from her matrimonial home.
A Single Bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia observed, “It is true that there may not be any physical cruelty after the separation but under section 498-A of IPC, cruelty may be of mental or physical. If a lady has been ousted from her matrimonial house, then certainly it will have impact on her mind amounting to mental cruelty…Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that it is barred by limitation…Furthermore, it is submitted by counsel for the applicants that since the FIR was lodged belatedly, therefore, the same is bad in law.”
Sr. Advocate Atipriya Gautam represented the petitioners, while A.A.G. Neeraj Tripathi appeared for the respondents.
The Court had to determine whether compelling a married woman to live in her parental home on account of less dowry would amount to cruelty or not.
The husband had sent a notice of divorce to his wife. Consequently, the wife filed an FIR against her husband and her in-laws for offences under Sections 498-A, 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Although the Court quashed the FIR against certain relatives, it upheld the charges against the mother-in-law and the husband.
While quashing the FIR against the relatives, the Court held that “vague, general and omnibus statements” were not sufficient to prosecute the near and dear relatives of a husband until a specific allegation was made. At the same time,
Further, the mother-in-law had argued that the FIR was lodged against them “as a way of counter blast” to the divorce notice. The second contention was that the FIR was lodged belatedly and the same was barred by time.
In consideration of this argument, the Court remarked that “once staying at her parental home on account of ousting from her matrimonial house on account of less dowry is held to be a cruelty, then it would become a continuous offence and every day would give a fresh cause of action.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the application.
Cause Title: Mahendra Nagpure & Ors. v. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Vikas Mishra
Respondents: Panel Lawyer Dilip Parihar and Advocate Ajay Sen
