On March 6th, the Orissa High Court ruled in favor of a housewife, finding her not guilty in a disproportionate assets (DA) case. The court ruled that the mere fact that certain assets are in the wife’s name does not constitute her as a principal accused in the disproportionate assets case, where her husband is the primary accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
CUTTACK: On March 6th, the Orissa High Court dismissed criminal proceedings against a housewife accused of abetting her husband’s alleged possession of assets exceeding his known sources of income. The court ruled that the mere fact that certain assets are in the wife’s name does not constitute her principal accused in the disproportionate assets case, where her husband is the primary accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
READ ALSO: Justice Sanjiv Khanna: Cross-Border Trade Requires Fair and Efficient Adjudication
The State Vigilance Department had initiated proceedings against the husband for disproportionate assets, implicating the wife in the process. However, the wife challenged the criminal proceedings, arguing against her alleged involvement in her husband’s actions.
Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, presiding over a single judge bench, emphasized the typical dependence of an unemployed wife on her husband’s earnings. The judge pointed out that the husband, as the principal accused, holds the ability to influence his wife’s decisions, especially regarding property acquisitions.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra said,
“Usually, it is the natural course that an unemployed wife is always dependent upon the will of her employed husband. The principal accused (husband) is in a position to dominate the will of the petitioner (wife). Thus, in this situation, the petitioner has no scope to deny the will of her husband to participate in the purchase of the movable or immovable property.”
The bench said immovable properties are factored into the disproportionate assets of the principal accused.
“The petitioner is not claiming that she has independently acquired the assets alleged to have been in her name. Hence, the onus is on the main accused to prove the source of the income from which the assets were acquired in the name of his wife,” the judge observed.
But the prosecution was banking on the allegation of “abetment” without any material to prosecute the petitioner. Dismissing it, Justice Mishra noted,
“If the analogy of the prosecution is accepted to sustain the criminal proceeding against the petitioner, then in that event, every member of the family of the principal accused in whose name any movable or immovable property was/is purchased by him shall be liable to be prosecuted for abetment.
Furthermore, the judge highlighted that the immovable properties in question contribute to the disproportionate assets of the husband, and the wife does not claim independent acquisition of these assets in her name. Therefore, the burden of proving the source of income for assets registered in the wife’s name rests with the main accused, as outlined in the court’s order issued on March 6th.
