The Supreme Court of India, invoking Article 142, terminated criminal proceedings under IPC Section 498A, addressing mental cruelty allegations by a wife against her ex-husband and relatives, filed six months post-divorce.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Recently, The Supreme Court of India invoked its comprehensive powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to terminate criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This provision deals with accusations of mental cruelty by a husband and his relatives towards his wife. The case involved a woman who filed the proceedings against her former husband six months after obtaining her divorce decree.
The couple, married in November 1996 and blessed with a daughter in April 2001, found themselves entangled in marital discord leading to the husband’s departure from the matrimonial home in April 2007. This departure set the stage for a protracted legal battle, with the wife filing for divorce shortly after, which eventually led to the annulment of their marriage by a family court in April 2013, on an ex-parte basis.
Nevertheless, the dissolution of their marriage did not mark the resolution of their legal disputes. Half a year after their divorce, the woman initiated legal proceedings against her ex-husband and his parents under Section 498A, alleging mental cruelty. This resulted in the Delhi Police registering an FIR in February 2014, followed by the submission of a chargesheet in September 2015.
Faced with these charges, the ex-husband sought legal recourse to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing his case in the Delhi High Court. Upon rejection of his plea, the battle ascended to the Supreme Court. Represented by advocate Prabhjit Jauhar, the man’s argument hinged on the assertion that the criminal proceedings constituted a clear abuse of the law, especially given the exhaustive consideration of the couple’s marital issues by the family court during the divorce proceedings.
Additionally, Jauhar pointed out that the woman had earlier initiated legal action against her husband under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, one year after his departure. However, this case was dismissed by the trial court based on its merits, a ruling that the woman did not contest, thereby reaching a final conclusion.
Justices BV Nagarathna and Augustine G Masih of the Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, opined that perpetuating the legal battle between the now-separated couple through criminal proceedings would serve no constructive purpose.
ALSO READ: “Labeling Wife ‘Bhoot’ or ‘Pisach’ Not Deemed Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC”: Patna High Court
During their discussion, the justices cited various previous rulings to clarify the precise conditions under which the Supreme Court can utilize its authority under Article 142. The consensus among the justices was clear: the situation at hand exemplified a scenario necessitating the exercise of this authority to protect the man from undue harassment following his divorce.