The Bombay High Court upheld IPC Section 498A proceedings against a man and his family, condemning the act of forcing the complainant to show her clean house via video call as “peculiar and sadistic.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court recently upheld the proceedings under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man and his family. This section addresses the issue of husbands or their relatives subjecting women to cruelty. The case involved a man, his wife, and his three sisters-in-law, with the court taking a strong stance on the alleged ill-treatment.
A Division Bench comprising Justices AS Gadkari and Neela Gokhale examined the peculiar circumstances of the case. They remarked on the behavior of the three sisters-in-law who were accused of compelling the complainant to show the cleanliness of her house via video calls. The judgment dated July 22 highlighted this as a “peculiar and sadistic form of ill-treatment.”
The Court’s observations were clear:
“The allegations that the sisters-in-law forced the complainant to show them the cleaned house via WhatsApp video call appear to be a peculiar and sadistic form of ill-treatment.”
The case came to light when the complainant’s husband and his family sought to quash the proceedings against them. They faced charges under sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC.
The complainant alleged that her sisters-in-law, who lived separately, would interfere in her household matters. They had her house help removed and forced her to prove the house was clean through video calls. Additionally, they dictated what meals she should prepare daily. Her husband was accused of suspecting her character and provoking quarrels over trivial matters. The complainant also stated that she was berated by the family on a WhatsApp group.
This consistent abuse led to the complainant being driven out of her home, resulting in the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) against her husband and his family. The petitioners contended that the matrimonial dispute had been unnecessarily criminalized. They claimed that the complainant influenced the police by threatening false criminal cases and attempting to extort monthly maintenance through her lawyer.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Decree, Quashes 498A Case Against Ex-Spouse
The petitioners also stated that the complainant and her husband had agreed to file for divorce by mutual consent, alleging misuse of section 498A by the complainant. However, the complainant emphasized specific allegations in the FIR, noting that witness statements corroborated the FIR’s material. She further accused the petitioners of unlawfully retaining her ‘Streedhan’ and refusing to return it.
“A fair reading of the FIR shows that the complainant, a newlywed daughter-in-law, faced abuse and mistreatment from the five petitioners over trivial issues.”
-the Court noted.
It further stated that the petitioners’ refusal to return the complainant’s ‘Streedhan’ demonstrated an intent to extort money from her and her parents.
The Court, upon examining the FIR, found specific roles attributed to each petitioner, concluding that the complainant had reasonable grounds to fear for her life due to the petitioners’ actions.
“The sole aim seemed to be extorting money from the complainant and her parents, evident from their refusal to return her ‘Streedhan.'”
The Court refused to quash the FIR, stating that this was not the stage to hold a mini-trial. The decision underlined the necessity of addressing such serious allegations through proper legal channels.
Advocate Vrushabh Savla represented the petitioners, while Advocate Prerak P Chaudhary appeared for the complainant. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) VN Sagare represented the State.
