SC: Petty matrimonial spats not covered by section 498A, IPC

7/5/2009

The Supreme Court has ruled that petty quarrels between husband and wife do not amount to cruelty under Section 498A, IPC (cruelty and harassment for dowry).

A bench comprising Justices Mukundakam Sharma and B S Chauhan, dropping the charges of cruelty and harassment against a husband, noted, ‘Petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 498A, IPC.

Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty. Cruelty, for the purpose of Section 498A, IPC, is to be established in the context of Section 498A as it may be different from other statutory provisions.’ The 15-page judgment added, ‘It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide etc.

It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of the time of lodging of the complaint.’ Justice Chauhan spoke for the bench while upholding the charges of bigamy against the husband Manju Ram Kalita who got married for the second time to one Ranju Sarma despite the fact that he had not divorced his first wife Minati Das Kalita.

The couple got married on February 5, 1992 and started living separately since March 1993 while a male child was born out of the wedlock.

The first wife lodged an FIR against the husband on May 23, 1997 when she came to know of his second marriage. The husband was charged and convicted for offences under Section 498A and 494 (bigamy), IPC. The trial court sentenced him to three years imprisonment for offence of bigamy and to two years for the offence of cruelty. Both sentences were to run concurrently.

Sessions Court and Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeals of the husband.

The apex court, however, maintained the conviction and sentence for the offence of bigamy but dropped the conviction and sentence for 498A.

The apex court, in its judgment, also noted, ‘Undoubtedly, there had been a complaint by the wife of physical and mental torture upto 1993 when she left the matrimonial home and started living with her father.

The complaint of cruelty was lodged by filing an FIR on May 23, 1997 that is after four years of leaving the matrimonial home. More so, the mental or physical torture was not continuous on the part of the appellant as there is no complaint against him between 1993 to 1997 that is leaving of the matrimonial home by the wife and performing of the second marriage by the husband.

Thus in our opinion, all the three courts below erred in not considering the case in the correct perspective. The findings so recorded by the courts below may be relevant for granting relief in a matrimonial dispute like divorce etc but could not bring home the charge under Section 498A, IPC.’

UNI
http://www.indlawnews.com/newsdisplay.aspx?0725583c-b2e8-48dc-93a4-8ebff97474be