Latest news with #SMModak
Time of India
a day ago
- Time of India
30 yrs on, man acquitted of abetting his wife's suicide
Mumbai: Nearly three decades after being convicted of abetting his wife's suicide by being cruel and harassing her about her complexion, among other things, a shepherd, then 23, was acquitted by Bombay high court. Domestic quarrels, including remarks about complexion and threats of a second marriage, do not constitute criminal harassment under the law, observed Justice S M Modak, who on July 11 set the man free. Quashing the man's conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment for suicide abetment under section 306 of erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC) and one-year rigorous imprisonment for cruelty to his wife under section 498A, IPC, Justice Modak, sitting singly, said, "The legislature contemplates that every dispute, quarrel, or altercation arising from matrimonial life are not criminal offences. It will take the colour of criminal law only when there are no alternatives for the wife but to put an end to her life because of the harassment. " You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai In 1998, following his conviction, the man appealed before HC. He was in Satara jail at the time and later out on bail. The conviction was unsupported by evidence, HC said and criticised the trial court for having "forgotten basic principles and ingredients of section 306 of IPC (suicide abetment)". Abetment needs to be proved for suicide, HC said. On record, though wife "was being taunted on account of her complexion, I do not think that it will fall within the explanation to section 498-A..." said Justice Modak. The prosecution also failed to prove the wife's suicide was due to harassment. The shepherd's father, also a co-accused, complained of her cooking, it was alleged. The marriage was in 1993, and the wife died in Jan 1998. Both sides shared the wedding expenses, HC noted, and there was no dowry demand. As a goatherd, he was away from home, "for a long time" and she would go to her mother's house, complain about harassment, and ended her life one day, HC noted. There seemed to be quarrels arising out of matrimonial life. "They are domestic quarrels," HC said and offence of cruelty requires husband's wilful conduct to be "of a high degree," which HC said in the case could not be considered so high as to compel the suicide. "...the judgment of the trial court cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law," HC held and acquitted the husband.
India Today
2 days ago
- India Today
Calling spouse dark not abetment: Court frees man 30 years after wife's suicide
Nearly three decades after being convicted for abetting his wife's suicide, a man has been acquitted by the Bombay High Court, which ruled that domestic quarrels, including remarks about complexion and threats of a second marriage, do not constitute criminal harassment under the judgment was delivered by Justice S M Modak, who was hearing an appeal filed in 1998 by a then 23-year-old shepherd from Satara district. advertisementThe man had been sentenced to five years in prison by a Sessions Court in Satara for offences under Sections 498A (cruelty to a married woman) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. The case dated back to January 1995, when the man's wife died by suicide after jumping into a well. Prior to her death, she had reportedly told her parents that she was being harassed by her husband and to the prosecution, the husband had taunted the woman over her dark complexion, said he did not like her, and threatened to marry another woman, while her father-in-law criticised her cooking and expressed dissatisfaction with the food she the High Court found that these incidents amounted to domestic discord, not criminal conduct."They can be said to be quarrels arising out of matrimonial life. They are domestic quarrels. It cannot be said to be of such a high degree so as to compel the woman to commit suicide. So, an offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out," said the Court said that while there was evidence of tension and disagreements within the household, they did not meet the legal threshold required to prove cruelty or abetment of suicide.'The legislature contemplates that every dispute, quarrel or altercation arising from matrimonial life are not criminal offences. It will take colour of criminal law only when there are no alternatives for the wife but to put an end to her life because of the harassment," the bench bench further said, 'There was harassment, but it was not of that kind of harassment due to which criminal law can be set in motion.'Noting that the prosecution had failed to establish a direct link between the alleged harassment and the woman's act of suicide, the court held that the trial court had overlooked fundamental legal principles. 'The Judge has forgotten the basic principles and ingredients of the Sections,' the High Court said, setting aside the conviction and ordering the appellant's release.- EndsMust Watch
India Today
28-04-2025
- Entertainment
- India Today
Influencer mother's erratic lifestyle no reason to deny custody of child: Court
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a father seeking the custody of his three-year-old child on the grounds that his mother, who is a social media influencer, holds an "erratic lifestyle".The bench of Justices Sarang V Kotwal and SM Modak said that the custody of the girl cannot be taken away from the mother unless there are circumstances to indicate that it would be harmful to the the court extended an interim relief granted to the father earlier, by which the mother is restrained from taking away the child outside the territory of India. A division bench of Justices Sarang V Kotwal and SM Modak ruled that custody cannot be removed from a mother unless there is clear evidence that it would be harmful for the child to remain with her. "Ordinarily, the custody of a young girl child must remain with the mother unless compelling circumstances suggest otherwise," the court noted. It also emphasised that the child in question is only three years mother, who currently resides in India, was accused by the father of lacking strong personal and professional roots in the country. The father further alleged that the woman was originally born in Pakistan, acquired Indian citizenship in 1995, and later renounced it to become a US citizen in 2007. advertisementDespite these claims, the court found no grounds to disturb the present custody dismissing the father's plea, the High Court extended an earlier interim order restraining the mother from taking the child outside India without the court's estranged couple married in October 2019, and their daughter was born in Mumbai in April 2022. According to the father's submissions, he had enrolled the child in a Mumbai school and prepaid fees up to 2026. Advocate Aabad Ponda, representing the father, argued that the mother had "clandestinely" taken the child to New Delhi in early 2024 under the pretext of visiting her own father and failed to return, despite booking return tickets for the child and her her relocation to Delhi, the mother served the father a legal notice alleging cruelty, domestic violence, financial deprivation, and mental harassment — charges the father has the mother initiated separate legal proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act in Delhi's family court, the father pursued habeas corpus in the Bombay High Court, claiming he was the child's primary caregiver due to the mother's professional advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the mother, argued that when a minor is already under the lawful custody of one parent, a habeas corpus petition is not maintainable. advertisementSalve pointed out that the Saket Family Court in Delhi had already passed an interim order in August 2024, restraining the father from forcibly removing the child from the mother's bench agreed, noting that the father's concerns regarding the mother's alleged "erratic work schedule" were disputed facts, unsuitable for determination in a habeas corpus petition. "It cannot be conclusively presumed that the mother's profession prevents her from caring for the child," the court judges also rejected arguments related to the couple's religion, observing that 'the religion of a party is only one among many considerations" when determining the welfare of a minor. "It is not a decisive or overriding factor," the court said. The court concluded that the mother was financially independent and capable of providing for the child's Watch
