Gauhati High Court: In an application filed seeking quashing of the chargesheet and proceedings registered against the petitioners- husband and in-laws of respondent 2- wife under Sections 498-A1 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) read with Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), a Single Judge Bench of Parthivjyoti Saikia, J., allowed the application, holding that quarrels between husband and wife or the demand of divorce by the husband or his relatives did not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC.
Background
The petitioner- husband, and respondent 2- wife, got married in 2012. The wife claimed that soon after marriage, she was mentally tortured by her husband and in-laws. The husband’s sister would always pressure the wife to divorce her husband, and the husband would also tell his wife that she was not his choice and that he didn’t want to continue this married life with her. According to the wife, such behaviour of her in-laws and husband made her feel mentally suffocated, and she developed ailments like depression, high blood pressure, insomnia, thyroid disorder, etc.
Allegedly, the wife was not allowed to meet her friends, nor was she given any money to buy her basic needs. Her in-laws never had food with her and never liked the food she prepared; in fact, she was often criticized. Her husband and in-laws also attempted to send her back to her maternal home but would pretend at social functions that they had a good relationship with her.
Due to such instances, the wife returned to her maternal home permanently. Soon after, she received multiple voice calls from the domestic servant of her matrimonial home, proposing to have intimate relations with her and using vulgar language. When the wife’s father contacted her father-in-law about the same, they were met with no response. The wife alleged that her in-laws conspired to malign her character and also created a ground for obtaining a divorce. She claimed that the aforementioned domestic servant was not an expert in handling mobile phones.
Thereafter, the wife filed an FIR, and a chargesheet was filed pursuant to the completion of the investigation. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act, against the husband and his family. Aggrieved, they filed the present petition.
Analysis
The Court placed reliance on Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330 wherein the Court held that “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A IPC as it may be different from other statutory provisions. It is to be determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man, weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts, and finding out as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, etc. It is to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity at the time of lodging the complaint. Petty quarrels cannot be termed as “cruelty” to attract the provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.
The Court noted that in the FIR, the wife never alleged that the petitioners ever demanded dowry from her. She only claimed that her husband did not like her and that his family members were pressuring her for divorce.
The Court stated that it had sufficient reasons to agree with the husband and in-laws that the word “cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A of the IPC is to be established in the context of Section 498-A, as it may be different from other statutory provisions. The Court agreed that Section 498-A was inserted in the IPC with a specific legislative intent, and the said legislative intent must be respected by the courts of our country. The Court further relied on Manju Ram Kalita (supra) wherein the Supreme Court held that there was no evidence of cruelty on the part of the appellant to drive her to commit suicide. Therefore, the Court acquitted the appellant from the charge of Section 498-A of the IPC.
Regarding the allegation under Section 67 of the IT Act, the Court stated that it was clearly alleged that the obscene materials came from the mobile phone of the domestic servant. The Court noted that the wife claimed that the domestic servant was not an expert in handling a mobile phone and it was her in-laws who had sent those materials from his phone. However, the police did not file the chargesheet against the domestic servant.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court held that quarrels between husband and wife or the demand for divorce by the husband or his relatives did not amount to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC. Subjecting a married woman to cruelty for want of dowry was the reason for which our legislature has inserted Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860. In the case at hand, there was no allegation of demand for dowry. Moreover, the allegation under Section 67 of the IT Act was admittedly based on suspicion.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the chargesheet and the proceedings.
[Abhishek Sureka v. State of Assam, Crl. Pet. No. 808 of 2023, decided on 13-03-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioners: Senior Advocate Bhaskar Dutta, Jitendra Das, and Sailendra Deka
For the respondents: Public Prosecutor Assam, G.N. Sahewalla, M. Sahewalla, S. Todi, H.K. Sarma, T.J. Sahewalla, A. Hasan, A. Ali, and N Hasan
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
