NRI detention: SHRC finds ACP guilty of negligence
The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has found a woman inspector guilty of negligence, which led to a 50-year-old NRI to undergo detention at the Mumbai airport for 34 hours in 2019.
On Friday, the SHRC recommended the State government to pay a compensation of ₹2 lakh to the victim.
It also recommended the government to recover the compensation amount from the salary of Mary Shailaja, who is presently serving as the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) of the Yeshwanthpur sub division.
Krishnaprasad, an NRI businessman from the U.K., was arrested in a harassment case in 2016 and later released on bail. The police filed a chargesheet against him, and Krishnaprasad took a stay order from the High Court.
On February 19, 2019, Krishnaprasad was detained at the Mumbai airport under a lookout circular (LOC) issued by the Halasuru Gate women police station.
A probe revealed that the circular had to be revised every year, but the police had failed to do so. When the immigration officials detained him and informed the police about the detention, instead of clarifying about the order, a team of police was sent to secure his arrest.
The police had even called the family of Krishnaprasad asking them to book the air tickets to take him to Bengaluru. However, after reaching the airport, the police found out about the High Court order and released him asking him to appear before the inspector the next day.
Due to this, Krishnaprasad had not only suffered 34 hours of detention and alleged humiliation, but also incurred a loss of ₹57,000 towards air tickets he had booked for the U.K.
Krishnaprasad had to take the next flight after paying ₹66,000 and later approached the SHRC through his family.
The probe by the SHRC revealed that the police have not revised the lookout circular and due to the negligence of the inspector, Krishnaprasad had to suffer harassment and financial loss. When the immigration officials contacted the Halasuru Gate police for clarification, instead of updating the case details, they sent a mail stating that Krishnaprasad was wanted in connection with the case for the purpose of investigation and should be handed over to head constables, Pushpakaran and Srinivas, for further investigation.
The email was sent from the official mail of ACP Mary Shailaja, which was recorded as the evidence.
The SHRC officials summoned the police who deposed before the commission that they carried the orders issued by the inspector. The family members alleged that the police had demanded money from them to revise the LOC. However, the allegation was not proved due to a lack of evidence.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
2 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Breach of marriage promise not cheating: Telangana HC
HYDERABAD: The Telangana High Court has ruled that merely failing to fulfil a promise of marriage does not constitute criminal cheating unless there is evidence of dishonest inducement resulting in the delivery of property or other material benefit. The court made this observation while quashing criminal proceedings against Rajapuram Jeevan Reddy, a resident of Karmanghat. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Karakalla Padmini Reddy, who alleged that Jeevan Reddy had reneged on a promise to marry her. According to the complaint, the two were in a relationship during their college years in 2016, during which Jeevan Reddy allegedly promised to marry Padmini after obtaining his parents' consent. She claimed he later withdrew from the commitment in front of friends but subsequently acknowledged his mistake and reaffirmed his intent to marry—only to back out again later. Based on her complaint, police registered a cheating case and trial proceedings commenced in a lower court in LB Nagar. Jeevan Reddy then approached the High Court seeking to quash the case. The court stressed that, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, an offence of cheating requires a clear indication of dishonest intent at the time the promise was made. In this case, the court found no allegations suggesting fraudulent or dishonest intent at the inception of the promise, nor any evidence that the complainant was deceived into parting with property or acting differently. The promise was reportedly withdrawn due to family objections, which the court said did not meet the legal threshold for cheating.
Economic Times
6 hours ago
- Economic Times
Mental cruelty: Know how a husband won a divorce battle in High Court as wife mocked his physical infirmity; Permanent alimony amount to be decided
ET Online Divorce: Wife mocking husband for physical infirmity is mental cruelty, valid ground for divorce, rules High Court On May 5, 2025, the Odisha High Court upheld a family court's ruling stating that if a wife passes negative mocking remarks about her husband's physical disabilities, it constitutes mental cruelty, allowing the husband to seek a divorce. The family court had also ruled that this divorce should be granted without any permanent alimony for the wife, which sparked the dispute. The wife was seeking a permanent alimony and the return of her Streedhan properties. There was no contention regarding the divorce itself. However, the High Court kept the alimony question open and advised the wife to bring up the alimony and Streedhan issue under Sections 25 and 27 in the family court. The wife had challenged the claim that her remarks about her husband's physical condition constituted mental cruelty. She said before the Odisha High Court that it has not been proved that her comments inflicted mental cruelty on her husband. The Odisha High Court looked into her claims and noted that several witnesses have verified that the wife had passed comments about her husband's physical infirmity, calling him 'Kempa, Nikhatu' and this fact hasn't been challenged. The High Court also said: 'The Wife making such statements against the Husband towards his physical infirmity definitely is causing mental pain. Such behaviour by the wife towards the husband discloses her thought and respect towards the husband.'However, the High Court said that under Section 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife can file another case in family court with regard to grant of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties. Hence with this judgement, the High Court confirmed the divorce decree but did not decide on the alimony out the details below to understand why the husband got a divorce (on ground of cruelty) without having to pay alimony, although later the High Court advised the wife to bring up the alimony and Streedhan issue under Sections 25 and 27 in the family court. How did this divorce alimony case start? According to the order of the Odisha High Court dated May 5, 2025, here's the timeline of events: June 1, 2016: The couple married by following Hindu rites and customs. June 2 to September 14 of 2016: The husband alleged that the wife was always passing comments about his physical infirmity and hence unpleasant situations arose between them. September 15, 2016: The wife left her husband's house and came back on January 5, 2017, after negotiations. She then also continued to comment on the husband's physical disabilities which resulted in serious dispute between the parties. March 25, 2018: She voluntarily left the matrimonial house. Thereafter she also lodged a criminal case alleging the offences under Section 498-A, I.P.C. and other offences against the Husband and in-laws. April 3, 2019: The husband filed a divorce case against the wife for dissolving the marriage. July 10, 2023: The Puri family court passed a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties without any grant of permanent alimony. The wife filed an appeal in High Court against only the alimony aspect. Odisha High Court investigated the husband and wife's claims The Odisha High Court said: Though two witnesses were examined on behalf of the Husband-Plaintiff, the Wife did not choose to examine any witness and not to adduce any evidence from her side though she cross-examined the Husband and his witnesses. Therefore, what is to be seen is that, in absence of any evidence led from the side of the Wife, whether the evidence brought on record by the Husband would satisfy his grounds of cruelty to grant the decree of divorce? Learned Judge, Family Court, Puri has framed five issues, amongst which Issue No.(ii) speaks about subjecting the Plaintiff to ill-treatment and mental cruelty by the Wife. All such issues including Issue No.(ii) has been answered in favour of the Husband. As borne out from the evidence of the Husband (P.W.1) that, the Wife is passing comments to her Husband saying 'Kempa, Nikhatu, etc.' Though the Wife has cross-examined the Husband, but did not suggest anything to rebut such statements made on the part of the Husband and it is also admitted by the Wife that she has initiated a criminal proceeding against the Husband and other in-law members. Also read: Divorce case: Wife's WhatsApp chats can be valid evidence about her extramarital affair, even when obtained without her consent, rules Madhya Pradesh High Court Odisha High Court answers whether cruelty includes mental cruelty and how it can be used as grounds of divorce The Odisha High Court said: Cruelty includes mental cruelty. Time and again, it has been clarified regarding the scope of mental cruelty. The Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs), (1994) 1 SCC 337 have also held this. As stated by the witness in the case at hand that the Wife passed comments to the physical infirmity of the Husband saying him as 'Kempa, Nikhatu' remains un-rebutted. The Wife making such statements against the Husband towards his physical infirmity definitely is causing mental pain. Such behaviour by the wife towards the Husband discloses her thought and respect to the Husband. A person is expected to give respect to another person in general and where it comes to the relationship of Husband and Wife, it is expected that the Wife should support the Husband despite his physical infirmity, if any. Here it is a case where the wife made aspersions to Husband towards his physical infirmity and passed comments regarding the same. This definitely in our opinion amounts to mental cruelty leading to draw an inference against the Wife that she treated her Husband with cruelty owing to his physical deformity. Thus we are inclined with the finding of the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri that the Wife has treated her Husband with mental cruelty. On such ground, we are satisfied that the requirement in terms of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act is attracted to grant the decree of divorce. We thus confirm the impugned judgment granting the decree of divorce between the parties dissolving their marriage. Also read: Matrimonial Dispute: Husband loses job after wife wins case; Know how this impacts private and government employeesFinal judgement: 'At this stage, with regard to grant of permanent alimony and return of Streedhan properties, as claimed by the Appellant-Wife, are left open to her to be agitated before the learned Judge, Family Court, Puri in terms of Sections 25 & 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act. We say so for the reason that, there is no material produced on record with regard to income of the Husband or the Wife and in absence of any material, we are unable to decide the question of permanent alimony here. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the appeal is disposed of.' What do the legal experts say? Pallavi Pratap, Managing Partner, Pratap & Co. says: 'This judgment is significant because cruelty is proven against the wife. Very rarely do we see such judgments. Although questions involving permanent alimony and Streedhan have been kept open, I see this as a major breakthrough. Traditionally laws in India have favoured women but increasingly such judgments indicate that men are now also seen to be victims.' What is the significance of this judgement? ET Wealth Online has asked various experts about what could be the significance of this judgement, here's what they said: Shivani Gupta, associate, Gandhi law Associates, says: The Orissa High Court's reasoning aligns with the Supreme Court's stance in Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar, where it was held that mental cruelty includes not only overt abuse but also sustained false or reckless allegations that damage a spouse's dignity and professional standing. The Court clarified that even without a judicial finding of falsity, defamatory complaints especially to employers in sensitive services can inflict serious harm and amount to cruelty sufficient for divorce. Together, these rulings affirm that men enduring emotional and reputational harm in marriage have equal legal protection and recourse. Aditya Chopra, Managing Partner, The Victoriam Legalis (TVL) says: This High Court of Orissa's ruling is a landmark decision in Indian matrimonial law, affirming mental cruelty as a ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Its significance lies in the following: Mental Cruelty defined and applied: The court upheld the Family Court's divorce decree, finding that the wife's derogatory remarks (e.g., 'Kempa, Nikhatu') about the husband's physical disability constituted mental cruelty, rendering cohabitation intolerable. Citing V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, the court emphasized that mental cruelty is context-specific, assessed based on the parties' social, educational, and cultural backgrounds, and includes conduct causing significant mental pain. The court upheld the Family Court's divorce decree, finding that the wife's derogatory remarks (e.g., 'Kempa, Nikhatu') about the husband's physical disability constituted mental cruelty, rendering cohabitation intolerable. Citing V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1 SCC 337 and Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh (2007) 4 SCC 511, the court emphasized that mental cruelty is context-specific, assessed based on the parties' social, educational, and cultural backgrounds, and includes conduct causing significant mental pain. Protection of dignity: The judgment highlights judicial sensitivity to protecting individuals with disabilities from humiliation within marriage. The wife's remarks targeting the husband's physical infirmity were deemed a clear instance of mental cruelty, setting a precedent for cases involving personal vulnerabilities. The judgment highlights judicial sensitivity to protecting individuals with disabilities from humiliation within marriage. The wife's remarks targeting the husband's physical infirmity were deemed a clear instance of mental cruelty, setting a precedent for cases involving personal vulnerabilities. Financial claims deferred: The court left claims for permanent alimony and Streedhan open under Sections 25 and 27, citing insufficient evidence of the parties' financial status. This reinforces the necessity of documented financial details to resolve maintenance and property disputes. The court left claims for permanent alimony and Streedhan open under Sections 25 and 27, citing insufficient evidence of the parties' financial status. This reinforces the necessity of documented financial details to resolve maintenance and property disputes. Statutory limits on divorce: The court reiterated that irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a standalone ground for divorce under Indian law, emphasizing strict adherence to statutory grounds like cruelty, despite prolonged separation (since 25 March 2018). Chopra adds: 'The judgment offers critical guidance for husbands in matrimonial disputes under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Husbands seeking divorce on grounds of mental cruelty must substantiate claims with robust evidence, such as witness testimonies or documented instances of abusive conduct, as demonstrated by the husband's un-rebutted testimony and corroboration in this case. Parallel criminal proceedings, like the wife's Section 498-A IPC complaint, require strategic handling to avoid undermining the divorce petition. Husbands must disclose financial details proactively to address alimony claims equitably, as the court deferred such issues for lack of evidence. Prompt filing, as seen in the husband's 2019 petition, and prolonged separation can strengthen claims, though statutory grounds like cruelty remain paramount.' Shivanngi Chadhaa, Advocate, Jotwani Associates says: The decision is significant for two key legal reflections: 1. The Expanding Definition of Mental Cruelty The Court's recognition that repeated verbal humiliation targeting a spouse's physical infirmity can amount to mental cruelty marks a progressive interpretation of Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. This ruling reinforces the judicial stance that cruelty need not be physical or demonstrative; it can lie in sustained emotional degradation that renders cohabitation insufferable. The reliance on landmark cases such as V. Bhagat and Samar Ghosh affirms that cruelty is to be understood contextually with sensitivity to social standing, emotional thresholds, and the nuances of modern marriage. 2. Alimony Deferred, Not Denied: The Court also took a balanced view by reserving the wife's right to seek permanent alimony separately, reinforcing that financial determinations must be evidence-based and procedurally sound. By reserving the Wife's right to claim permanent alimony and Streedhan under Sections 25 and 27of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Court has underscored the principle that equitable relief must be substantiated with financial disclosures. This careful balancing ensures that alimony is neither presumed nor denied in vacuum, but determined on evidentiary merit. According to Amir Khan, associate, Accord Juris LLP: This case not only affirms the rights of husbands under cruelty provisions often viewed from a wife-centric lens but also sets a judicial precedent that verbal cruelty rooted in physical shaming is intolerable and actionable. Here's some key legal takeaways: The Court confirmed that ridiculing a spouse for physical disabilities constitutes mental cruelty, giving husbands a strong legal footing under Section 13(1)(i-a) to seek divorce. The wife's request for permanent alimony was denied for lack of financial disclosure, but the judgment hints that fault-based conduct like cruelty can influence alimony decisions, especially if the claimant is the offending party. The verdict reinforces that mental cruelty is not gender-specific. By citing V. Bhagat and Samar Ghosh, the Court reiterated that both husbands and wives have equal legal protection against abusive conduct in marriage. This case strengthens the evidentiary and judicial roadmap for similar future claims, promoting consistency in how courts evaluate emotional abuse and verbal cruelty in matrimonial disputes. Vivek Joshi, Senior Associate, PSL Advocates & Solicitors, says: The present decision holds immense significance since it not only recognizes mental cruelty within the definition of cruelty but also considers the aspersions made by the wife against the husband in relation to his physical infirmity as being under the ambit of mental cruelty. The key takeaway from the decision is that even in cases of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty, however, the same does not dispense cogent evidence and such allegations must be proved. What did the Supreme Court of India say about mental cruelty of husband The High Court cited the Supreme Court in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (Mrs), (1994) 1 SCC 337 where it was held: Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they were already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be determined in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.'
The Hindu
16 hours ago
- The Hindu
NRI detention: SHRC finds ACP guilty of negligence
The State Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has found a woman inspector guilty of negligence, which led to a 50-year-old NRI to undergo detention at the Mumbai airport for 34 hours in 2019. On Friday, the SHRC recommended the State government to pay a compensation of ₹2 lakh to the victim. It also recommended the government to recover the compensation amount from the salary of Mary Shailaja, who is presently serving as the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) of the Yeshwanthpur sub division. Krishnaprasad, an NRI businessman from the U.K., was arrested in a harassment case in 2016 and later released on bail. The police filed a chargesheet against him, and Krishnaprasad took a stay order from the High Court. On February 19, 2019, Krishnaprasad was detained at the Mumbai airport under a lookout circular (LOC) issued by the Halasuru Gate women police station. A probe revealed that the circular had to be revised every year, but the police had failed to do so. When the immigration officials detained him and informed the police about the detention, instead of clarifying about the order, a team of police was sent to secure his arrest. The police had even called the family of Krishnaprasad asking them to book the air tickets to take him to Bengaluru. However, after reaching the airport, the police found out about the High Court order and released him asking him to appear before the inspector the next day. Due to this, Krishnaprasad had not only suffered 34 hours of detention and alleged humiliation, but also incurred a loss of ₹57,000 towards air tickets he had booked for the U.K. Krishnaprasad had to take the next flight after paying ₹66,000 and later approached the SHRC through his family. The probe by the SHRC revealed that the police have not revised the lookout circular and due to the negligence of the inspector, Krishnaprasad had to suffer harassment and financial loss. When the immigration officials contacted the Halasuru Gate police for clarification, instead of updating the case details, they sent a mail stating that Krishnaprasad was wanted in connection with the case for the purpose of investigation and should be handed over to head constables, Pushpakaran and Srinivas, for further investigation. The email was sent from the official mail of ACP Mary Shailaja, which was recorded as the evidence. The SHRC officials summoned the police who deposed before the commission that they carried the orders issued by the inspector. The family members alleged that the police had demanded money from them to revise the LOC. However, the allegation was not proved due to a lack of evidence.
