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

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more