LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

lawweb   22 June 2018

Whether seeking financial help from wife amount to cruelty?

Whether Seeking Financial Help from Wife amount to Cruelty?

 
 Insofar   as   the   allegations   of   ill­treatment   are
concerned, from the evidence it appears that the prosecution
witnesses have not described any specific instance or specific
nature   of   ill­treatment.   P.W.1   has   merely   stated   that   the
Appellant used to harass Kavita because she was unable to cook
properly and that he used to give abuses to her. This conduct by
itself will not fall within the meaning of explanation (A) u/s
498­A, where the term “Cruelty” is explained. In the fact of this
case, it cannot be said that this conduct of the Appellant was of
such a nature that it was likely to drive Kavita to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. The
allegations fall much short of the requirements of explanation
(a) to section 498­A.
22. Insofar as the demand of Rs.1,000/­ is concerned, as
 
mentioned earlier, there are no allegations that on that count
specifically Kavita was harassed. Therefore even explanation (b)
where “Cruelty” is explained u/s 498­A is not attracted in the
present case. Even as per the prosecution case, the Appellant
was seeking financial help to secure a room on rent. Considering
the Appellant's poor financial condition, such request for help
cannot be termed as 'unlawful demand.' There is no evidence to
show that the deceased was ill­treated because the amount of
Rs.1,000/­ was not paid.
23. Ms.Kaushik submitted that since the deceased Kavita
had committed suicide within six month of marriage, section
113­A of the Indian Evidence Act, is attracted. The Court was
required   to   raise   the   presumption   against   the   accused.   The
burden shifted on the Appellant to prove his defence. In this
context it is necessary to consider section 113­A of the Indian
Evidence Act, which reads thus;
“113­A – Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman ­
 
When the question is whether the commission of
suicide by a woman had been abetted by her
husband or any relative of her husband and it is
shown that she had committed suicide within a
period   of   seven   years   from   the   date   of   her
marriage and that her husband or such relative
of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the
Court may presume, having regard to all the
other circumstances of the case, that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband or by such
relative of her husband.”
24. In this case it is true that the deceased Kavita had
committed suicide within six months of marriage. But the crucial
question remains as to whether the prosecution has been able to
discharge its initial burden of showing that her husband had
subjected her to cruelty. For the purpose of this section again
reference is made to the explanation to section 498­A of IPC
where 'cruelty' is explained. As discussed hereinabove, I have
already   reached   the   conclusion   that   the   prosecution   has   not
been able to prove that the Appellant had treated the deceased
 
with cruelty within the meaning of section 498­A of IPC. In my
opinion, therefore section 113­A is not attracted.
 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.305 OF 2002
 
Ananta Laxman Pansare Vs The State of Maharashtra
 
CORAM :  SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE :  07th MAY, 2018.


Learning

 1 Replies

Kumar Doab (FIN)     22 June 2018

Thanks for sharing in the forum..


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Related Threads


Loading