CASE TITLE
BHASKAR LAL SHARMA & ANR VS MONICA & ORS
Facts of the case
- The respondent-petitioner has initiated a proceeding for execution of the maintenance order against her husband who resides outside the country.
- The respondent-petitioner had invoked the extraordinary remedy provided under Article 32 of Indian Constitution for the execution of the order.
- The respondent-petitioner filed a complaint against her husband along with father- in-law and mother-in-law under Section 498A,406 read with Section 34 of IPC,1860.
- On 21-3-2005, the Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons to the appellants (herein). Aggrieved by which appellants moved to High Court but the appeals were dismissed.
- Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the High Court, appellants moved special leave petition before the apex court which was granted on 27.07.2009.
- The apex court held that no offence was made out against either of the appellants under Section 498A of IPC.
- Dissatisfied with the judgement and order of the apex court, the respondent-petitioner herself and Nation Commission for Women filed curative petition.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT
- The apex court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that present case is not the right case to allow to invoke jurisdiction of apex court under Article 32.
- It was observed that the prosecution has failed to establish to the elements of Cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.
- Court held that the execution order for maintenance passed under section 125 of Cr.P.C was made in favour of the respondent.
- The apex court held that the maintenance order under section 125 of Cr.P.C was in favour of the respondent therefore the recourse remedy to be opted should be from the code itself.
- Court held that the right recourse remedy in the present case where the husband resides outside the territory of India is under Section 105 of Cr.P.C.
- Court observed that in context to allegation raised under Section 406 IPC, it was clear from the complaint that the appellants exercised dominion over the property belonging to respondent.
- Court said that so far section 498A is concerned, the averments made in complaint contains allegations against mental cruelty. Therefore, the allegations cannot be completely quashed.
- Court examined facts and circumstances in order to constitute the criminal offence of Cruelty. It was held that the conduct should be as such likely to drive the woman to suicide or leads to cause serious physical or mental injury.
- It was said that conduct likely to cause immense danger to the life of the women will also come within the ambit of Cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.
- It was said that the allegations whether true or false amounting to Cruelty can be determined only after detailed trial proceedings.
- Court directed the learned family co transfer the matter to the criminal court where the matter can be concluded
