Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., held that, if a husband files a divorce petition that cannot be taken as an act of cruelty.
The informant, who was the wife of the applicant contended that the applicant had demanded 10 tolas of gold and high-quality furniture, at the time of the marriage. Further, it was stated that the parents-in-law had opposed the marriage since the day of marriage and started harassing her. They even used to give pinching words regarding non-payment of dowry.
Adding to the above, it was stated that the mother-in-law used to give messages to the applicant stating that informant is ugly looking girl and thereupon applicant started mentally harassing her.
Due to some medical condition, the informant had to leave her service and once she came back to India, the father-in-law started saying that since she was now unable to ring money by taking up service, she should bring amount of Rs 50,00,000 from her parents, otherwise she should give divorce to the applicant. In 2021, she was assaulted and driven out of the house.
Applicant had approached the Additional Sessions Judge; however, the application of the husband had been rejected and it was stated that the divorce petition have been considered. Further, it was stated that if the divorce petition would not been filed there was every possibility of patch up. However, the husband went one step ahead by filing a divorce petition and the said amount to cruelty.
It was stated that the nature of the applicants was aggressive, and they had treated the informant with cruelty. Further, it was added that if the applicants were enlarged on bail, there was strong possibility of tampering the prosecution witnesses.
Analysis and Decision
High Court expressed that,
“Filing of divorce petition by the husband cannot be taken as an act of cruelty or a ground for rejecting the anticipatory bail.”
Further, the Court stated that, certain articles valuable as well as general articles of the informant were stated to be with the applicant. In fact, she could get it under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, it need not be seized.
In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260, it was observed that there should be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified.
It also to be noted that Courts should not get carried away with the desire of a party to see the other behind bars. The said may be sometimes to settle the personal score and, therefore, the Courts should be on guard as to whether really the arrest is necessary. Only prima facie case against the person is also not a criterion to be looked into.
“…not only the police officer but also the learned Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should question ‘why arrest’, ‘is it really require’, ‘what purpose it will serve’, ‘what object it will achieve’.”
The above was stated in view of the Supreme Court decision in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
In view of the above, the application was allowed. [Anmol Madhukar Divekar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1056, decided on 6-5-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
Mr. M.L. Muthal, Advocate for the applicant
Mrs. V.N. Patil-Jadhav, APP for the respondent
