DV ACT 2005   |   IPC 498A   |   Maintenance






Number of Documents : 44

INSTALL ANDROID APP



1.

IPC 498A
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA at CHANDIGARH

on

2016-10-03
Crl Misc No M-8742 of 2015J.Anita ChaudhryDaljit Singh vs Sukhwinder KaurIPC 498A

Dowry Complaints Must Be Approached Cautiously As That's Serious Matter For Accused

No fetters can be put on the powers of the Court from exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. once the Court finds that the proceedings against the petitioners are smeared with malafides then pontinuation thereof would be an abuse of the process of the Court. Once this Court has concluded that continuation of prosecution against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law, there is no need to delve into the questions of jurisdiction or to the recourse to the provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
2.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2016-08-04
Curative Petition (CRL) No 39 of 2016CJI.T.S.ThakurNational Commission for Women vs Arnesh KumarIPC 498A

SC DISMISSES NCW'S CURATIVE PETITION AGAINST ITS 2014 JT PROTECTING HUSBANDS AGAINST AUTOMATIC ARRESTS : The Supreme Court bench comprising the Chief Justice, TS Thakur, and justices Anil R Dave, J.S.Khehar, and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, on August 4, dismissed the curative petition filed by the National Commission for Women (NCW), by circulation, against its 2014 judgment in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar. Arnesh Kumar was delivered by a two-Judge bench comprising justices Chandamauli Kr Prasad and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, on July 2, 2014. The judgment in this case had created a controversy, with feminists protesting against its lack of sensitivity to women victims of dowry harassment. The 2014 judgment seeks to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused in dowry harassment cases under Section 498-A of the IPC unnecessarily and Magistrates do not authorize detention of the accused casually and mechanically.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
3.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2016-02-05
Cri Appeal No 128 of 2011J.Jagdish Singh KheharRam Saran vs State of U.P.IPC 498A

MARRIED SISTER'S LIVING SEPARATE CASE QUASHED : Since, we have not interfered with the impugned summoning order dated 12.05.2008(as against appellant nos. 1 to 3), we would consider it just and appropriate to request the trial Court, to take up and dispose of the proceedings emerging out of Crime Case No. 326 of 2002, registered at Police Station Shiv Kutti, Allahabad, under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, against appellant nos. 1 to 3 only, as expeditiously as possible.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
4.

IPC 498A
HC of Gujrat

on

2015-06-21
Circular No C. 2703/81 of 2015*****----- vs -----IPC 498A

Gujrat HC order to Follow SC Order in Arnesh Judgment Circular.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
5.

IPC 498A
SC of India

on

2015-03-19
Cri App No 781 of 2012J. Dipak MishraMrs. Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U.P. and OthersIPC 498A, CrPC 156(3)

Shield Against False Cases, SC od INDIA Says Proof Must

(1) In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.

(2) The present lis can be perceived from another angle. We are slightly surprised that the financial institution has been compelled to settle the dispute and we are also disposed to think that it has so happened because the complaint cases were filed. Such a situation should not happen.

(3) In the present case, we are obligated to say that learned Magistrate should have kept himself alive to the aforesaid provision before venturing into directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is because the Parliament in its wisdom has made such a provision to protect the secured creditors or any of its officers, and needles to emphasize, the legislative mandate, has to be kept in mind.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
6.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2015-03-16
Cri App No 456 of 2015J. Aadarsh Kumar GoelTARAMANI PARAKH vs State of M.P.IPC 498A

Just Naming Distance Relative in not Enough to Summon them without the Mention of Specific Role in 498A

(1) There are allegations against Respondent No.2 and his parents for harassing the complainant which forced her to leave the matrimonial home. Even now she continues to be separated from the matrimonial home as she apprehends lack of security and safety and proper environment in the matrimonial home. The question whether the appellant has infact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial but at this stage, it cannot be said that no case is made out. Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.

(2) The decisions referred to in the judgment of the High Court are distinguishable. In Neelu Chopra, parents of the husband were too old. The husband Rajesh had died and main allegations were only against him. This Court found no cogent material against other accused. In Manoj Mahavir, the appellant before this Court was the brother of the daughter-in-law of the accused who lodged the case against the accused for theft of jewellery during pendency of earlier 498A case. This Court found the said case to be absurd. In Geeta Mehrotra, case was against brother and sister of the husband. Divorce had taken place between the parties. The said cases neither purport to nor can be read as laying down any inflexible rule beyond the principles of quashing which have been mentioned above and applied to the facts of the cases therein which are distinguishable. In the present case the factual matrix is different from the said cases. Applying the settled principles, it cannot be held that there is no triable case against the accused.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
7.

IPC 498A
HC of MADRAS

on

2014-12-23
CRL. R.C. NO. 684 of 2014S. NagamuthuE.Kalivarathan vs The StateIPC 498A

Madras HC judgement on Increasing FakeCases of Dowry and Rape

(1) Before parting with this order, I wish to mention that the incidence of false criminal cases is on the increase. The National Crime Records Bureau, in its Report on Crime in India for the year 2000, has stated that 7.55% of the total cases registered in the Country are false cases. The latest report on Crime in India for the year 2012 has been released by National Crime Record Bureau, which shows roughly 48% of complaints were frivolous as the accused were either acquitted by the court or the complaints were found to be false at the investigation stage itself. For example, so far as the crimes against the women are concerned, the statistics shows that in rapes, dowry deaths, harassment to married women, and outraging of modesty of women, the percentage of false cases are 7.4%, 6.6%, 9.6% and 5.8% respectively.

(2) The above statistics, if compared to the statistics of the year 2000, would go to show that the registration of false cases is phenomenally on the increase. Those who are implicated in these false cases suffer in terms of humiliation, loss of money, loss of working hours, loss of mental peace and at last, loss of employment as well. Most of the accused implicated in these false cases hail from poor strata of the society for whom some hearts bleed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
8.

IPC 498A
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2014-08-14
Crl. A. 210 of 2013J.Pradeep NandrajogDinesh Kumar vs State NCT of DelhiIPC 498A, IPC 304B

Aquital in IPC 498A or DOWRY CASE

(1) The serious consequence which may ensue to the accused in such a situation can be limned through an illustration: If a bride was murdered within seven years of her marriage and there was evidence to show thateither on the previous day or a couple of days earlier she was subjected to harassment by her husband with demand for dowry, such husband would be guilty of the offence on the language of Section 304-B IPC read with Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. But if the murder of his wife was actually committed either by a dacoit or by a militant in a terrorist act the husband can lead evidence to show that he had no hand in her death at all. If he succeeds in discharging the burden of proof he is not liable to be convicted under Section 304-B IPC. But if the husband is charged only under Section 302 IPC he has no burden to prove that his wife was murdered like that as he can have his traditional defence that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge of murder against him and claim an order of acquittal.

(2) The above illustration would amplify the gravity of the consequence befalling an accused if he was only asked to defend a charge under Section 302 IPC and was alternatively convicted under Section 304-B IPC without any notice to him, because he is deprived of the opportunity to disprove the burden cast on him by law.

(3) In such a situation, if the trial court finds that the prosecution has failed to make out the case under Section 302 IPC, but the offence under Section 304-B IPC has been made out, the court has to call upon the accused to enter on his defence in respect of the said offence. Without affording such an opportunity to the accused, a conviction under Section 304-B IPC would lead to real and serious miscarriage of justice. Even if no such count was included in the charge, when the court affords him an opportunity to discharge his burden by putting him to notice regarding the prima facie view of the court that he is liable to be convicted under Section 304-B IPC, unless he succeeds in disproving the presumption, it is possible 'Crl.Appeal No. 210/2013 Page 15 of 16 for the court to enter upon a conviction of the said offence in the event of his failure to disprove the presumption.'

(4) Thus Sections 304B or 498A IPC not being minor offences of Section 302 IPC, in the absence of an appeal by the complainant or the State, it is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court to convert the conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to one under Section 304B or 498A IPC.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
9.

IPC 498A
HC of MUMBAI

on

2014-07-28
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Recent Judgment on 498A
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
10.

IPC 498A
HC on MUBAI

on

2014-07-25
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Another SLAP by Mumbai HC
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
11.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2014-07-21
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Case Registred in IPC 498A QUASHED
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
12.

IPC 498A
HC of KERLA

on

2014-07-03
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Release KIN if Innocent in CRUELTY Cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
13.

IPC 498A
SC of India

on

2014-07-02
Cri App No 1277 of 2014Chandramauli Kumar----- vs -----IPC 498A

No arrests under anti-dowry law without magistrate's nod
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
14.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2014-07-02
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

No arrests under anti-dowry law without magistrate’s nod
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
15.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2014-05-09
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

498A Quashed on the ground of Sepration and Vague alligations
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
16.

IPC 498A
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-03-03
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Mere demand of a car, without subjecting the deceased to any cruelty or without harassing her in any manner in connection with the said demand does not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of IPC particularly when it was not linked to the marriage and was sought for the purpose of convenience alone though it may possibly constitute an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
17.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2013-11-11
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

The question for consideration is whether the appellant Bhola Ram was rightly convicted by both the Trial Court and the High Court for having caused the dowry death of Janki Devi, an offence punishable under Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In our opinion, Bhola Ram deserves an acquittal since there is no evidence inculpating him.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
18.

IPC 498A
HC of Maharastra

on

2013-09-05
Writ Petition No 2999 of 2013J. S.C. Dharmadhikari and J. G.S. Patel----- vs -----IPC 498A

Case Registred under IPC 498A in Nagaland and Stay given by HC of Maharastra under the power given to HC in Article 226 of Constitution
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
19.

IPC 498A
HC of M.P.

on

2013-02-11
M.Cr.C.No. 11962 of 2012J. Anil Kumar----- vs -----IPC 498A

J. Anil Kumar said, today wife try to trap all family members of Husband to get Revange, just because she is hurt by Husband and Quashed a case against family Members of Husband. Case will continue only Against Husband.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
20.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2012-10-17
Criminal Appeal No 1674 of 2012J. Gyan Sudha MisraGeeta Mehrotra vs State of U.P.IPC 498A

Merely by Making a General Allegation That They Were also Involved in Physical and Mental Torture of the Complainant in not enough for Trail.

(1) The High Court in our considered opinion appear to have missed that assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the High Court has failed to consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants to proceed against them. But as the contents of the FIR does not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the complainant’s husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 498A/323/504/506, IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2) We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant-respondent No.2 without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant’s husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings in so far as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal accordingly is allowed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
21.

IPC 498A
HC of HARYANA

on

2012-05-21
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

It is now well settled principle of law that, in order to attract the penal provisions of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC, there must be specific allegations/overt acts and prima facie material against the petitioner to indicate that the dowry articles were actually entrusted to him and he misappropriated the same. The in-laws and other relations cannot, in all cases, be held to be involved in the demand of dowry. In cases, where such accusation is made, the overt acts attributed to such persons, other than husband, are required to be prima facie established. By mere conjectures and implications, such relations cannot be held to be involved for the offences relating to the demand of dowry.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
22.

IPC 498A
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH­WEST)­ 01, ROHINI : DELHI

on

2012-05-08
Session Case No 378 of 2007MS. ILLA RAWATState vs Raghu RaiIPC 498A, 304B

ACQUITTAL FROM IPC 304B : (1) It is apparent that the entire investigations have been carried out to conceal the actual truth from the court and to give color of dowry death to poisoning of deceased Sushma, even though her husband Ramesh was also afflicted by poisoning for which, no explanation is forthcoming from the prosecution. (2) In the nutshell, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons on record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I acquit all the three accused persons – Raguraj, Samarthi and Ramesh of the charged offenses, giving them the benefit of doubt.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
23.

IPC 498A
HC of UP

on

2011-12-14
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

No arrest to be made in UP in any 498a IPC case
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
24.

IPC 498A
HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE at ALLAHABAD

on

2011-09-30
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

(1) Whether registration of an FIR is mandatory ? (2) Whether arrest of husband and family members mandatory once FIR is lodged, (3) Whether distinction possible between cases necessitating immediate arrest, and cases where attempt for mediation should first be mad, (4) Appropriate place where mediation should be conducted, (5) Need for time frame for concluding the mediation proceedings, (6) Who should be the members of the mediation cell in the district ?, (7) Procedure to be followed by the police when a report of a cognizable offence under section 498A IPC or allied provisions is reported, (8) Necessity of training to mediators, (9) Should offences under section 498-A IPC be made compoundable ?
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
25.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2011-07-04
Cri App. No 982 of 2008J. B.S.CHOUHAN----- vs -----IPC 498A

Deliberate Delay in Filing an FIR Can Be Seen as Abuse of Court Process
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
26.

IPC 498A
HC of UTTRAKHAND

on

2011-05-26
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

498A Stayed on the Ground that it is Love Marriage
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
27.

IPC 498A
HC of GUJRAT at AHMEDABAD

on

2010-11-16
Crl Rev App No 259 of 2010J.M.R.ShahSHOBHNABEN vs SHEKHARIPC 498A

No Independent Witness Examined Acquittal in 498A : applicant in support of her case that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have demanded Rs.10,000/-, which was paid to them by borrowing the same from relatives. However neither any name of relatives were given by the complainant, from whom, she has borrowed Rs.10,000/- to pay to the accused persons nor any of the relatives were examined. It is also required to be examined that except the original complainant, her brother and two panchas (who turned Hostile), no independent witnesses were examined. Not a single neighbour was examined to prove that cruelty has been caused by respondent Nos.1 to 4 – original accused. Considering the aforesaid aspects, Trial Court has acquitted the accused, which came to be confirmed by Appellate Court, the same are not required to be interfered with by this Court by exercising revisional jurisdiction.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
28.

IPC 498A
HC of UTTRAKHAND

on

2010-10-26
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

IPC 498A Quashed-Mutual Compromise
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
29.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2010-08-13
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

498A Complain Quashed by SC of India on the basis of no specific allegation
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
30.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2010-07-08
Crl App. No 1182-1184 of 2010j.V.S.SirpurkarVijeta Gajra vs State of NCT of DelhiIPC 498A

Cruelty by husband and relatives requires proving beyond doubt

Cruelty by husband and relatives requires proving beyond doubt that the cruelty was intentional and to the extent of pushing a woman to commit suicide/ pose great threat to life, limb and health.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
31.

IPC 498A
HC of Punjab and Haryana

on

2009-12-15
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

The FIR has arisen due to differences between the brother of the petitioner and his wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued (which is not disputed) that the complainant is married to the brother of the petitioner and, since he was a permanent resident of America left India within two months. He further argues that the petitioner is unmarried sister and question for entrustment of any property to her would normally not arise. He has further argued that by now marriage between the complainant and the brother of the petitioner has been annulled and thus, the continuance of further proceedings against the petitioner at least is illegal and unfair.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
32.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2009-07-06
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Quashed 498a against the husband as the complaint shows no allegation that there is any such conduct on the part of the appellant which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
33.

IPC 498A
HIGH COURT of DELHI AND NEW DELHI

on

2008-08-04
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

(a) While drafting pleadings/complaints, the lawyers should not unnecessarily suggest incorporation of wild allegations, or in character assassination of any of the parties or their family members whatever the case may be. (b) Lawyers are also to endeavour to bring about amicable settlement between the parties as they are expected to discharge sacred duty as social engineers in such cases instead of making them target for monetary considerations by multiplying their cases.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
34.

IPC 498A
HC of ALLAHABAD

on

2007-11-01
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

Allahabad High Court: IPC 498a Quashed based on Jurisdiction
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
35.

IPC 498A
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2007-08-21
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

BAIL Proceedings cannot be converted into recovery proceedings.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
36.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2007-05-11
Crl App 1613 of 2005G.P. MathurAPPASAHEB vs State of MaharastraIPC 498A, 304B

EVERY DEMAND FOR MONEY, NOT DOWRY : A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses of for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
37.

IPC 498A
HC of KERLA

on

2007-03-26
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

498A Quash Judgment
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
38.

IPC 498A
HC of DELHI & NEW DELHI

on

2007-02-23
Crl. M. C. 7262 of 2006J. S. N. Dhingra----- vs -----IPC 498A

Acquittal of relatives Due to vague allegations and how to go after dowry givers to curb false complaints
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
39.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2005-07-19
***** of *********----- vs -----IPC 498A

(1) Petition Purported to declare declare Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, to be unconstitutional. (2) Whenever, any court comes to the conclusion that the allegations made regarding commission of offence under Section 498 IPC are unfounded, stringent action should be taken against person making the allegations.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
40.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2004-11-05
Appeal Crl 1274 of 2004J.Santosh HegdeRuchi Agarwal vs Amit KumarIPC 498A, 323, 506, 13B

IF WIFE BACK OUT AFTER GETTING MUTUAL CONSENT DIVORCE, STILL FIR WOULD BE QUASHED : Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that though the appellant had signed the compromise deed with the above-mentioned terms in it, the same was obtained by the respondent-husband and his family under threat and coercion and in fact she did not receive lump sum maintenance and her Stridhan properties, we find it extremely difficult to accept this argument in the background of the fact that pursuant to the compromise deed the respondent-husband has given her a consent divorce which she wanted thus had performed his part of the obligation under the compromise deed. Even the appellant partially performed her part of the obligations by withdrawing her criminal complaint filed under Section 125. It is true that she had made a complaint in writing to the Family Court where Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings were pending that the compromise deed was filed under coercion but she withdrew the same and gave a statement before the said court affirming the terms of the compromise which statement was recorded by the Family Court and the proceedings were dropped and a divorce was obtained. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant having received the relief she wanted without contest on the basis of the terms of the compromise, we cannot now accept the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the conduct of the appellant indicates that the criminal complaint from which this appeal arises was filed by the wife only to harass the respondents.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
41.

IPC 498A
HIGH COURT of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2003-05-19
Crl. Rev. 462 of 2002J.J.D.KapoorSavitri Devi vs Ramesh ChandIPC 498A

Failed marriage is not Dowry Harassment

It is apparent, neither every cruelty nor every harassment has element of criminal culpability for the purposes of Section 498-A. There is no problem where there is physical violence and infliction of injury which is likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. In such cases, facts will speak for themselves. We have adopted this defintion from English Law though for the purpose of divorce on the ground of cruelty, Indian Law defines it as a conduct as to cause a reasonable apprhension in the mind of the petitioner that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the other party. Element that cruelty should be of such nature as to cause `danger' to life, limb or health or as to give rise to reasonable ap rehension of such a danger does not exist in Indian Laws of Divorce. This ingredient is of much sterner and higher degree. Supreme Court in Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326 has referred to this aspect of `cruelty' like this:- ry, as under the English law, that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause `danger' to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Clearly danger to life, limb or health or a reasonable apprehension.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
42.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2002-07-11
Appeal (Civil) 3930 of 2002J. D.P.MohapatraParveen Mehta vs Inderjit MehtaIPC 498A

Defination of MENTLE CRUIELTY in IPC 498A cases

Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behaviour is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other.

Judged in the light of the principles discussed above what we find is that right from the beginning the matrimonial relationship between the parties was not normal; the spouses stayed together at the matrimonial home for a short period of about six months; the respondent had been trying to persuade the appellant and her parents to agree to go for proper medical treatment to improve her health so that the parties may lead a normal sexual life; all such attempts proved futile. The appellant even refused to subject herself to medical test as advised by the doctor. After 21st June, 1987 she stayed away from the matrimonial home and the respondent was deprived of her company. In such circumstances, the respondent who was enjoying normal health was likely to feel a sense of anguish and frustration in being deprived of normal cohabitation that every married person expects to enjoy and also social embarrassment due to the behavior of the appellant. Further, the conduct of the appellant in approaching the police complaining against her husband and his parents and in not accepting the advice of the superior judicial officer Mr.S.K.Jain and taking a false plea in the case that she had conceived but unfortunately there was miscarriage are bound to cause a sense of mental depression in the respondent. The cumulative effect of all these on the mind of the respondent, in our considered view, amounts to mental cruelty caused due to the stubborn attitude and inexplicably unreasonable conduct of the appellant.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
43.

IPC 498A
SC of INDIA

on

2002-02-06
Crl App No 1 of 1995R.P. SethiGananath Pattnaik vs State of ORISSAIPC 498A, 304B

HEARSAY EVIDENCES : It follows, therefore, that there was no legal evidence tendered in the case which could be made the basis for returning a finding with respect to the alleged cruelty of the accused with the deceased. In the absence of any legal evidence produced in the case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove, beyond doubt, that the appellant had committed the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and find that it is a fit case where he is entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
44.

IPC 498A
HC of GUJRAT

on

1999-07-23
Crl. App. No 207 of 1988J.H.R.ShelatIndrasing M.Raol vs State of GujratIPC 498A

Defination of IPC 498A

(1) On careful scrutiny what becomes clear is that the trial Court has not correctly interpreted the letters. The gist and pith thereof are overlooked. Kailasba had not after the marriage gone to Meerut even for a day, though she used to receive affectionate letters from the appellant, who also used to express his high regards for the elders. Where found necessary, he unflinchingly expressed his repentancy and pang, and also expressly or impliedly apologised. Many other letters are not produced, but on the basis of those 3 letters, it can well be reasonably inferred that the appellant might naturally be trying to know when Kailasba would be reaching Meerut, and also it was natural and normal that he would expect and desire or even need his wife to stay with him at Meerut, but he did not receive any invigorating response. Being agog, he must be experiencing excruciating restiveness, unsettledness, and frustration which must have made him casually frantic, and in a despairing mood or feeling perturbed, he groaned and spouted his anguish in the letter using so-called tarts, or intemperate language, and resorting to arm-twisting trick, he just hinted what could be the remote compelling possibility, cursorily mentioning that he might marry a local girl and pass them over. When accordingly vomiting out his grief and affliction, he has tried to mitigate his woeful situation, can only 3 letters, out of 50 letters gaining eulogy and laurel of his in- laws, be construed as harassment or cruelty envisaged by Section 498-A is the question that arises for consideration.

(2) If in assertion of conjugal right, the accused does a pesky act or wrong amounting to harassment, when one's own spouse avoids her obligation turning blind eye to his right for no good reason, it cannot be termed unabetted harassment or cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A; but it will amount to expected or incited stormy reaction to the act on the part of the victim or complainant-side. In that case, required intention to drive her to be wanting. In the case on hand, Kailasba for no good cause was avoiding to go to Meerut where appellant was serving. The evidence reveals that Kailasba was advised by Motiba not to write letters. The object of marriage was being frustrated. The three letters written during disheartening period are, therefore, the reaction of the unjust provocative act on the part of Kailasba. In other words, the same is the flesh and outbreak of a fiery or dejected mind. When that is so the letter or contents thereof even if believed to be impolite or ungracious act will not fall within the ambit of cruelty envisaged by Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, because the same will be lacking of required intention to drive her to commit suicide.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW