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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more