Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Anr
Cri WP NO. 3936 OF 2021
According to the complainant woman, her husband’s relatives stated that she does not know how to cook and that her parents have not taught her anything.
The Bombay High Court dismissed a case against a husband’s family members after a wife filed a complaint, ruling that minor arguments do not qualify as cruelty under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and that remarks made by the husband’s family about the wife’s cooking do not qualify as cruelty under the same section.
This was said by a bench made up of Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and NR Borkar during the hearing of a plea submitted by the husband’s brother and cousin, Section the complainant wife claimed to have filed a section 498A 0f IPC complaint against.
What did the relatives of the husband of the complainant woman tell her?
According to the complainant woman, her husband’s relatives stated that she does not know how to cook and that her parents have not taught her anything.
Petty quarrels do not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC.
The High Court noted that the only allegation levelled against these two relatives of the complainant’s husband is that they commented that the complainant woman does not know how to cook and that such a comment does not constitute “cruelty” under the explanation to Section 498-A of the IPC.
The bench ruled that “petty quarrels do not constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC.”
The High Court went on to state that there must be prima facie evidence of two things in order for section 498-A to be violated: (a) willful behaviour that puts the woman in danger of suicide or serious harm to her life, limb, or health; and (b) harassment of the woman with the intention of forcing her to comply with an illegal dowry demand.
The High Court further stated, quashing the complaint, “It must be proven that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously or persistently, or at least in close proximity to the time of lodging the complaint,” in the case against the relatives of the husband of the complainant woman.
Relatives of the husband of the complainant woman sought the quashing of the FIR.
The complainant woman’s husband’s relatives had approached the High Court seeking to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against them with the Bhilawadi Police Station, District Sangli, as well as the subsequent charge sheet that was pending before the court.
What did the complainant woman allege?
The complainant woman got married in July 2020, however, she said that in November of the same year, she was ejected from her marital residence. She filed a formal complaint in January 2021, claiming that her spouse had failed to build a marriage since the day of their wedding. She added that she had been teased and insulted by her in-laws.
COURT JUDGEMENT –
The high court emphasised that minor arguments do not qualify as cruelty against a woman, saying that it is necessary to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the lady was the victim of an offence under IPC section 498A if there had been deliberate behaviour to drive her to try suicide, cause her serious damage, or harass her for dowry. “The petitioners in this case have only been accused of saying that the complainant is a bad cook. That is the only accusation made against them. According to the interpretation of IPC section 498A, a division bench consisting of Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and Nitin Borkar, such a remark does not qualify as “cruelty.”
ADV. KHANAK SHARMA