J. Venkatesan
| However, taking away wedding gifts is "breach of trust" under Section 406 IPC, says Supreme Court |
New Delhi: The action of woman merely kicking her daughter-in-law with her leg or threatening her with divorce will not come within the meaning of "cruelty" under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, the Supreme Court has held.
A Bench of Justices S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph said that the allegation that the mother-in-law poisoned the ears of her son against his wife and gave her two used suits of her daughter could not be said to be offences punishable under Section 498A IPC.
However, if the mother-in-law took away the gifts given to the couple at the time of marriage, it would amount to "breach of trust" as specified under Section 406 IPC.
Section 498-A IPS says: "Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such a woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine."
Quoting an earlier judgment, the Bench said: "The object of this provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with an oblique motive. Acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to trial.
"The object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision, a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin's weapon."
Appeal against orderIn the instant case, Monica filed cases alleging cruelty and breach of trust against her South-Africa based husband Vikas Sharma and his parents Bhaskarlal and Vimla. Monica was Vikas' second wife. He had divorced his first wife by whom he had two children. Monica filed cases under IPC Sections 498-A and 406.
A Patiala trial court issued summons against her husband and in-laws. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the husband and in-laws challenging the trial court's decision. The present appeals were directed against this order.
"These litigations, if a holistic view is taken, depict a sad state of affairs, namely that the respondent [Monica], on the one hand, intends to take all coercive measures to secure the presence of her husband and the appellants in India in various cases filed by her and, on the other hand, she had repeatedly been making attempts at conciliation," the Bench said.
Disposing of the appeals, the Bench said: "The only allegation which brings the case within the purview of Section 406 is that the mother-in-law had taken all the gifts/cash given by the invitees/guests. We, therefore, are of the opinion that prima facie a case under Section 406 of the IPC has been made out only against the mother-in-law.
It is clarified that the proceedings can continue only against the mother-in-law, that too in respect of Section 406 IPC only."
Corrections and Clarifications
No comments:
Post a Comment