DATE OF JUDGEMENT
7th December 2021
BENCH
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
PARTIES
Petitioner- Nakkeeran @ JeroanPandy
Respondents- State ( represented by- The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District) and M. Thamarai Selvi
SUBJECT
In this case, the accused was found to be in an extramarital relationship with another woman and also had a child from the relationship. The Madras high court held that it affected the victim&rsquos mental health and thus amounts to &lsquoMental Cruelty&rsquo as under Section 498(A) of Indian Penal Court.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
(1)Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.&mdashFor the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"&mdash
(a) anywillful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
OVERVIEW
- Thamarai Selvi lodged a complaint against her husband on 17.02.2006 alleging that he had committed bigamy and had failed to maintain a proper relationship with her by physically and mentally abusing her ever since she got married to him. The case was filed against 6 people under sections 498(A), 406, 494, and 506(ii) of IPC.
- The learned judicial magistrate held that the accused was found to be inflicting cruelty from the year 2000 to 2005 on the complainant by asking for dowry. However, offence of bigamy was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the Court acquitted accused 2 to 6. The petitioner/accused was convicted under Section 498(A) pf IPC and was sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of 3000/- rupees and in case of default of payment of the fine to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months.
- Aggrieved by this the petitioner chose to appeal in Sessions court where the learned sessions judge confirmed the conclusions of the trial court and held the sentence. This led to the filing of the revision petition in the High Court of Madras and the present judgement.
Contentions:
- The counsel for petitioners contended that the allegations that the complainant had been subjected to cruelty and physical torture for dowry should be negated as she herself had clarified in Ex.D1/ legal notice that she was happy during the years 2000 to 2005.
- It was also contended that the trial court and the first appellate court had committed a grave error in considering the evidence related to the extramarital affair and mere allegation of having an extramarital relationship will not amount to an offence under Section 498(A) of IPC.
- The learned government advocate for the first respondent contended that the evidence submitted before the court was enough to conclude that mental cruelty was inflicted upon the respondent. A birth certificate of the child that was born as a result of petitioner&rsquos extramarital relationship was submitted to further prove this point.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is guilty under Section 498(A) of IPC?
ANALYSIS
- For the allegations regarding physical and mental torture of the complainant, the court held that since she herself had specified in the legal notice that she was living happily in her marriage during the years 2000 to 2005,it gave a cause to doubt the allegation leveled.
- The court noted that in the case of K.V. Prakash vs. State of Karnataka, the Apex court has observed that to ascertain mental cruelty it is required that facts and circumstances of each case be examined separately and so there is no generalized meaning of the same. In this case, it was also held the extramarital affair, per se, does not amount to mental cruelty but even so, it depends on the facts of each case and every individual & rsquos mental sensitivity.
- Further, the court after taking into account the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there did exist an extramarital relationship between the petitioner and the 6th accused as alleged by the respondent.
- The court said the extramarital relationship &ldquohas caused such an effect on the mental health of PW.1, which resulted in serious domestic discord and her leaving the matrimonial home.&rdquo
- It was therefore, held that the action of petitioner/accused had caused a serious trauma to the respondent and had affected her mental health gravely and due to this she was forced to leave her matrimonial home. Therefore, the court came to the conclusion that this act of the petitioner would amount to cruelty within Section 498(A) of IPC.
- However, the court keeping into consideration the circumstances of the present case agreed to modify the sentence of the accused from one year of imprisonment to six months.
- Thus, the court party allowed this criminal revision case.
CONCLUSION
Extramarital relationships might not be considered a crime anymore, but they still affect the other spouse irrevocably and damages their mental health. In a country like India, where the sanctity of marriages is considered an important part of our culture it is especially hard for the victim spouse to speak up against it, thus, it is important that our courts make sure that such actions have grave consequences. It was correctly decided by Madras High court that extramarital affair could amount to mental cruelty under Section 498(A) of IPC.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
