CASE TITLE
Rupali Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh
DATE OF ORDER
09 APRIL 2019
SUBJECT
The court examines the question that whether a woman who was forced to leave her matrimonial home due to acts of Cruelty by her matrimonial relations can initiate legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is living, the place not being her matrimonial home?
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The petitioner was married to respondent no.2 in December 1997. The petitioner brought with her sufficient amount of dowry cash and articles.
- The problem arose when the respondent-accused started mistreating and harassing the petitioner for Rs.2 lakh and a car as dowry demand.
- The harassment continued even after the birth of first child, a son in 1998. When the petitioner got pregnant with the second child, the accused forcibly terminated the baby.
- In 2002, the accused threw out petitioner from their home and refused to hive her his son.
- The matter got worsen when in 2005, accused persons cane to petitioner’s house with the desire to take her back. When she went back to her matrimonial house, she found that her husband has a second wife there.
- Her objection to husband’s second marriage resulted into physical assault to her by the husband.
- In September 2005, petitioner filed a FIR against the respondent persons under Section 498A, 494,313 and 505 of IPC.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
- The apex court entertained the appeal and found respondent-accused guilty of the offence under Section 498A of IPC.
- Court held that Section 498A covers both mental and physical aspects of health. The silence of wife may have underlying element of emotional distress due to acts of Cruelty at the matrimonial home. The adverse effects on mental health due to such acts would amount to cruelty under the Penal Code.
- Court said that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act provides civil remedy to the victims of domestic violence and has a close connection with the offence of Cruelty defined under the Penal Code. The impact on mental health of the women due to acts of violence by her husband and relatives along with the trauma and helplessness of wife being away from matrimonial home are important aspects of ‘Cruelty’ under Section 498A of IPC.
- Court said that it is possible that the acts of physical abuse might have ceased but mental trauma and emotional distress may continue to be caused due to verbal abuse or acts of husband or relatives.
- Court said that even wife leaves matrimonial home and goes to her parental home, the acts of Cruelty committed by her husband in the matrimonial home can negatively affect the mental heath of the wife at the parental home.
- In context to the question of legal access of jurisdiction of courts to wife from a place where she is taking shelter driven away from matrimonial home, court held that the wife do have the legal access and the court at such place will have jurisdiction to entertain the complain under the Indian Penal Code,1860.
- Court observed that the ordinary rule laid down regarding local jurisdiction under Section 177 of Cr.P.C has exception laid down under Section 178 and 179 of Cr.P.C.
- Section 178 permits courts in another local area where offence is partly committed to exercise jurisdiction and take cognizance. If an commission of offence takes pace in another jurisdiction due to result of the criminal act, the courts of that jurisdiction will be competent to take the cognizance under Section 179 of Cr.P.C
- The apex court held that where the acts of Cruelty under Section 498A of IPC is alleged, the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter will have jurisdiction for the case.
CONCLUSION
The case became one of the landmarks in the domain of women protection particularly against Cruelty. The court in its judgement categorically stated that the allegations of cruelty cannot be set aside simply because physical assaults have ceased. The impact of physical assault on the emotional and mental health of wife would amount to Cruelty as well and there no escape from it in the eyes of law. The judgement favoured that wife can approach to the courts at the place where she is taking shelter after leaving the matrimonial house of the husband due to acts of cruelty by the people of the house. Thus, the present case of Rupali Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh indeed is a step towards protection of rights of in a marriage.
