Skip to main content

Bombay HC: Mere harassment not same as domestic cruelty

Dismissing a petition by a woman who had levelled allegations of cruelty against her husband and his family members, the Bombay High Court has recently observed that mere harassment did not amount to cruelty as defined by the law on domestic cruelty unless it was done with a definite motive and an unlawful demand.
Justice Revati Mohite Dere was hearing a revision application of the 35-year-old woman who had sought criminal action against her 45-year-old brother-in-law and in-laws residing in Malad.
Earlier, on November 2, 2011, the sessions court had rejected her plea for the same, although a notice was issued to her husband.
The woman’s octogenarian father-in-law had died during the pendency of her application.
While referring to Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Justice Dere observed that in the entire complaint, there was no illegal demand of any kind alleged to have been made by the respondents.
“It is pertinent to note that none of the allegations as set out in the complaint against the respondent number 2 to 4 (the woman’s in-laws) would constitute ‘cruelty’ as defined under Section 498A of the IPC. The harassment contemplated has to be with a definite object, namely
to coerce the woman or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand. Hence, mere harassment is not cruelty,” Justice Dere said.
While dismissing the woman’s revision application, the high court also observed there was a tendency to implicate all the family members whenever there was a matrimonial dispute, something which had been deprecated by the Supreme Court.

 Article referred: http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/hc-mere-harassment-not-same-as-domestic-cruelty/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more