Date of Judgment:
19th May 2003.
Bench:
J.D.Kapoor, J.
Parties:
Petitioner – Savitri Devi.
Respondents – Ramesh Chand and Ors.
Subject
The Hon’ble High Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hon’ble High Court’ or ‘the Court’), has held that the clauses mentioned under divorce laws were abused and exploited to such an extent that it undermined the basis of marriage on its own and demonstrated to be detrimental to the health of society as a whole, the Court believed that officials and legislators needed to evaluate the situation and statutory rules to stop this from happening in the future.
Legal Provisions
Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 406 – which states that whosoever commits a criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years with a fine.
- Section 498A – which states that if a woman’s spouse or relative of her husband exposed her to cruelty, then he along with the family members would be imprisoned for a time that may last up to three years, as well as a fine.
- Section 304B – which states that when a woman dies within seven years of marriage as a result of burns or bodily injury, or if it is revealed that before her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative of the husband in connection with dowry demand, the woman’s death will be regarded as dowry death.
BRIEF FACTS
- In this instant petition where after marriage the petitioner’s in-laws, particularly her father-in-law, husband, and brother-in-law, did not approve of the dowry items and expressed dissatisfaction that they were not given a Hero Honda and Rs. 50,000/- in cash. The wife of her husband's elder brother, Mr. Mukesh, and her husband's sister did not like the clothes given to them, and Mr. Mukesh claimed that if Sanjay had married her younger sister, he would have received more dowry.
- The petitioner contested that her husband and father-in-law were the ones who were harassing her regularly for the demand of dowry articles, and there subsisted no allegations of dowry demand on other members of the family.
- Following that, charges for misappropriation of dowry articles and the offense punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against the petitioner's husband and her father-in-law, with additional charges for insufficient dowry levied against the sister-in-law under Section 498A.
- Subsequently, it was also observed that the elder brother of the husband (deceased) should have been liable for both the offenses U/s. 498A coupled with Sec. 406 of the Penal Code.
- Thus the main contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners was that the non-acceptance of the gifts/dowry articles by the respondents amounts to cruelty and harassment which is meted out U/s. 498A of the Penal Code.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the non-acceptance of the dowry articles by the respondents is tantamount to cruelty and harassment U/s. 498A of the Penal Code?
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Hon’ble court placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat vs. Mrs. D. Bhagat, where the court elucidated the meaning/interpretation of “mental cruelty”, thus stating that “Mental cruelty can be widely characterized as behavior that provokes the other party mental anguish and agony to the point where the other party is unable to live with the other In other words, "mental cruelty" must be of such a nature that the parties are unable to coexist."
- Furthermore, the court referred to what constitutes cruelty in matrimonial affairs from American Jurisprudence where the Court opined that to determine whether or not a couple is being harsh to one other, it should be accompanied with a full series of acts or conducts that should normally be considered to infer cruelty, thus an individual act tantamount to intensity or seriousness which is likely to cause a grave impairment to the victim’s physical and mental health.
- Following that the Court noted that the prerequisites to invoke Section 498A of the Penal Code’s clauses are stringent, and the purpose behind it is the most essential factor, further the Court stated that the only criterion is that the guilty party's actions or behavior should have the intent or effect of causing grave injury to the lady or are likely to put her life, limb, or physical or mental health in jeopardy.
- Further it was observed that the imbibed allegation of ‘harassment’ by the petitioner would only be sustainable when such intimidation is done to ‘coerce’ the victim and in this particular instance to meet the unlawful demand of dowry articles by in-laws would amount to harassment as contemplated in the provisions of the Penal code.
- In addition, the Hon’ble Court remarked that the provisions of Penal Code Sections 498A/406 are tearing at the very foundational principles of marriages and have proven to be harmful to society's overall health, further the court also pointed out the inefficiencies of the lower functionaries in determining the complex aspects of what constitutes ‘marital cruelty’ and ‘harassment’ resulting in the cases being prolonged for a long period.
- Similarly, the Hon'ble Court observed that the aforementioned provisions are being abused by the women and their relatives to engage every relative of the accused husband, including minor children and distant relatives who have no nexus with the allegations made against the accused husband and the complainant's in-laws, per contra after the complaint has been lodged under the aforementioned provisions of the Penal Code, overstated accusations without any suasion.
- Subsequently, giving a free tool at the hands of the Crime Against Woman Cell that disturbs the accused and their families with the threat of arrest and thus making them flee their residential homes and seek shelter elsewhere hoping to get anticipatory bail because the offense under the aforesaid section is cognizable and non-bailable.
- Lastly, the Hon’ble Court stated that to prevent ineptitude in human relations and to view this issue from a human and social perspective, it is necessary that the independent inquiry into these offenses is enmeshed in civil authorities such as Executive Magistrates, and that due consideration is taken after his finding as to the commission of the crime.
CONCLUSION
The court advised the authorities, law-researchers, and makers to revise the aforementioned provision to make it non-cognizable and bailable, and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Law Secretary, UOI. Further, the Court observed the opposite trend, the Hon'ble Court requested that the Justice Commission and Parliament make the crime non-cognizable and that the courts condemn the misdeed while also protecting the victim.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
