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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Difference Between Sale Of 'Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern' And Sale Of 'Business Of The Corporate Debtor As A Going Concern'

Citation : M.S. Viswanathan, Liquidator of Gemini Communication Limited vs Pixtronic Global Technologies Pvt. Ltd,  IA/1215/CHE/2021 in CP/699/IB/2017 Date of Judgment/Order : 15/2/22 Court/Tribunal : National Company Law Tribunal, Division Bench I, Chennai Corum : R. Sucharitha, Member (Judicial), Sameer Kakar, Member (Technical) Background Application was filed by the Liquidator under Regulation 32(e) of the IBBI (Liquidation Process) Regulations, 2016 seeking approval from the Tribunal for sale of the Corporate Debtor as a going concern. Order Allowing the application, the NCLT went into an elaborate but useful explanation of the entire law behind the term 'Going Concern'. NCLT observed that  the term 'going concern' means all such assets and the liabilities, which constitute an integral business or the Corporate Debtor, that must be transferred together, and the consideration must be for the business or the Corporate Debtor. The buyer of the assets and liabilitie...
Post a Comment
Read more