Latest news with #Section498-A
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
‘Abuse of process of law', Telangana HC quashes dowry harassment charges against in-laws of Hyderabad woman in absence of specific details
The Telangana High Court Friday quashed criminal proceedings against the aged parents and married sister of a man accused of dowry harassment and cheating. Justice Juvvadi Sridevi noted that the allegations against the in-laws were vague and lacked specific details, amounting to an 'abuse of process of law'. However, the primary accused, the husband, will face trial for the alleged offences. The case pertains to a wife's complaint alleging offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty by husband or relatives of husband), and 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The couple has been married since 2009 and has two children. According to the wife, the husband subjected her to physical and mental harassment at the instigation of his family members. The wife alleged that the children were taken away from her to Gurgaon without her knowledge or consent by the husband. The petitioners (the husband, his parents, and sister) sought to quash the proceedings against them in a case on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Hyderabad. The counsel for the petitioners argued that there were no specific allegations against them, and they never interfered in the marital issues or demanded dowry. They also highlighted that the parents are aged (70 and 60 years) and that the in-laws reside in Gurgaon, Haryana, away from the couple's home. Referencing a Supreme Court decision in 'Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others versus State of Telangana and another', the high court stated, 'Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.' The court noted that 'Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498-A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife.' The Court stated that there are no specific allegations of dowry demand, dishonesty, or fraudulent intention attributable to the parents and sister. It noted that the primary allegation revolved around the husband's conduct of taking the children, which the court stated does not fall under Sections 420 or 498-A of the IPC. The court further observed that despite allegations of physical assault by the husband, there was no medical evidence or statement from a competent medical practitioner to substantiate the claims. Rahul V Pisharody is an Assistant Editor with the Indian Express Online and has been reporting from Telangana on various issues since 2019. Besides a focused approach to big news developments, Rahul has a keen interest in stories about Hyderabad and its inhabitants and looks out for interesting features on the city's heritage, environment, history culture etc. His articles are straightforward and simple reads in sync with the context. Rahul started his career as a journalist in 2011 with The New Indian Express and worked in different roles at the Hyderabad bureau for over 8 years. As Deputy Metro Editor, he was in charge of the Hyderabad bureau of the newspaper and coordinated with the team of district correspondents, centres and internet desk for over three years. A native of Palakkad in Kerala, Rahul has a Master's degree in Communication (Print and New Media) from the University of Hyderabad and a Bachelor's degree in Business Management from PSG College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore. Long motorcycle rides and travel photography are among his other interests. ... Read More
Economic Times
4 days 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
7 days ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court quashes dowry harassment case, flags misuse of Section 498-A
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside proceedings against a family of six in a dowry harassment case, terming the charges 'frivolous' and 'motivated'. The Court highlighted contradictions in the complainant's version and flagged serious flaws in the police investigation, asserting that continued prosecution would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The case stemmed from an FIR registered by a woman who alleged cruelty and harassment for dowry after her marriage on January 28, 2024. She claimed she was driven out of her matrimonial home within two months and accused her husband and his family members of mental and physical abuse, including a demand for ₹20 lakh. However, a Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, after reviewing the chargesheet, found significant inconsistencies in the complaint. The Court noted that the complainant had suppressed her own employment details — she was working as a senior executive at a Pune-based health insurance company — while accusing the husband and his family of harassment and financial demands. The Judges observed that the couple had spent part of their short-lived marriage on a honeymoon in Manali and that the complainant's own travel records and admission contradicted several of her allegations. 'A fact that surprises is that it is stated that within two days only the mother-in-law started demanding an amount of ₹20,00,000/- as dowry. She states that she was abused; pinching words were given, she was asked to do the work in the house and was kept starving. It is hard to believe then that she states that within those two days even the sister-in-law started saying that the informant should be killed by pressing a pillow on her face,' the Bench said, adding, 'The applicants are well-educated persons and, therefore, it is hard to believe that within two days the relationship would go so bitter.' Criticising the police investigation, the Bench noted that the investigating officer failed to verify the allegations by visiting the matrimonial homes in Kharghar and Manmad. Instead, a panchnama was carried out at the complainant's father's house in Nanded with no meaningful corroboration of her claims. 'This is a classic example of misuse of Section 498-A,' the Bench declared. 'Nowadays even the police are not taking proper precautions and making appropriate investigations in such cases. This attitude is dangerous because genuine cases would suffer due to such apathy.' The Court also noted that many of the statements recorded from the complainant's family appeared to be 'copy-paste' versions lacking substance or independent verification. Quashing the criminal proceedings, the Judges invoked their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, reiterating that courts must intervene in cases where prosecution appears to be driven by vengeance or is manifestly groundless. 'The institution of criminal proceedings with an ulterior motive can destroy lives,' the Bench noted, emphasising the need for caution in both filing and investigating matrimonial complaints.
News18
23-06-2025
- News18
Son, Daughter-In-Law Can't Force Elderly Parents To Share Home Against Their Will: Bombay HC
The senior citizen couple had moved the high court challenging an order in favour of the daughter-in-law that quashed the eviction issued by the senior citizens tribunal. The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has recently held that a son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their ageing parents to let them reside in their home against their wishes, while reaffirming the rights of a senior citizen couple. A bench presided over by Justice Prafulla S Khubalkar held that the son and daughter-in-law had no legal right to reside in the house, especially when relations had become hostile. The judge said, 'In any case, the son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire. As such, there is no legal basis for the claim of respondent No.4 to reside in the petitioners' house, and on the contrary, the petitioners are entitled to invoke provisions of the Act to seek eviction of respondent Nos.3 and 4." The verdict came in response to a plea filed by the senior citizen petitioners, challenging the appellate tribunal's order that had ruled in favour of the daughter-in-law and set aside an earlier direction asking the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the house. Before the High Court, it was the petitioners' case that they had allowed their son and daughter-in-law, who had a love marriage, to reside in their home, considering their immediate needs after marriage. However, the relations soon turned sour, as the petitioners alleged that the daughter-in-law began filing frivolous cases against them. They then approached the senior citizens' tribunal seeking eviction of both the son and the daughter-in-law from their property. The tribunal had allowed their plea. The daughter-in-law had then contested the order passed by the tribunal before the appellate tribunal. Notably, she had filed divorce proceedings against her husband, along with proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 498-A against her husband and in-laws. Before the Appellate Tribunal, she contended that she had a right to reside in the property in question, mainly because the matrimonial proceedings filed by her were still pending. While allowing her plea, the appellate tribunal denied the relief sought under the Senior Citizens Act by the petitioners in the present case. It asked the petitioners to initiate appropriate civil proceedings, noting that the dispute was civil in nature. The senior citizen petitioners before the high court, represented by Advocate NS Jain, had argued that the appellate tribunal had adopted a perverse approach, defeating the object and purpose of the Senior Citizens Act, which ensures the protection of the rights of senior citizens. It was argued that the daughter-in-law had filed frivolous and malicious cases against them. On the other hand, Advocate ML Sangit, the Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the tribunals, contended that the tribunal had merely allowed the daughter-in-law's appeal and asked the parents to pursue eviction through civil courts. It was argued that the tribunal had rightly refused the claim for eviction. Rejecting these claims, the high court said that directing the petitioners to initiate fresh civil proceedings for the eviction of their daughter-in-law was detrimental and defeated the purpose of the Senior Citizens Act. While considering the factual matrix of the present case, the court opined that the appellate tribunal had grossly erred in allowing the appeal and directing the parties to approach the civil court to seek eviction. In a noteworthy interpretation of the statute, which specifically refers to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the court said that it was a beneficial legislation aimed at protecting and upholding the welfare of senior citizens. 'It is thus evident that the appellate tribunal has adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach, thereby defeating the very object and purpose of the special statute, which is in the nature of beneficial legislation enacted to safeguard the rights and interests of senior citizens. Although vested with statutory powers under the said enactment, the appellate tribunal has displayed an indifferent attitude towards the issues raised by the senior citizens," the court added. Accordingly, the high court set aside and quashed the order passed by the appellate tribunal. It went on to uphold the order passed by the senior citizens tribunal, which had granted the elderly couple relief. Thus, the son and daughter-in-law were directed to vacate the property within 30 days. The court also imposed costs on them for failing to comply with a previous order by which it had directed them to pay Rs 20,000 per month for continued occupation. First Published: June 23, 2025, 15:44 IST News india Son, Daughter-In-Law Can't Force Elderly Parents To Share Home Against Their Will: Bombay HC
NDTV
25-04-2025
- NDTV
Dowry Death Affects Foundation Of Dignity But No Blanket Ban On Bail: Court
New Delhi: Offence of dowry death strikes at the foundations of dignity, equality and justice in domestic life, but there is no blanket prohibition against the grant of bail in such cases, the Delhi High Court has said. Justice Sanjeev Narula, while granting the relief of bail to a dowry death accused, said the Court was fully conscious of the societal gravity and enduring prevalence of such incidents but a decision of bail must rest on the individual facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, the wife of the accused applicant passed away in November 2023 after she allegedly hung herself from a ceiling fan in the bathroom. Justice Narula observed that the death of a young woman within a year of marriage under unnatural circumstances inevitably invited serious legal scrutiny, but the material on record, in this case, prima facie revealed significant ambiguities and lacked the specificity that section 304B (dowry death) IPC demanded. "This Court remains fully conscious of the societal gravity and enduring prevalence of dowry deaths. Such offences strike at the foundations of dignity, equality, and justice in domestic life," said the Court in a judgement dated April 22. "However, the observations (of the Supreme Court) in (the case of) Shabeen Ahmad cannot be read as laying down a blanket prohibition against the grant of bail in every case under Section 304B IPC. Rather, the (top) Court reaffirmed that bail decisions must rest on the individual facts and circumstances of each case, the nature and weight of the evidence, and the overall context in which the allegations are situated," it stated. In the present case, the Court asserted that the absence of any "proximate allegation" shortly before the death created a doubt, and the statements of the victim's family members were devoid of specific details, particularly with respect to the date, time or frequency of the alleged demands. It added that the alleged demand for a car was mentioned only in the post-incident statements made by the family of the victim, and there was no contemporaneous complaint during her lifetime alleging harassment or demand for dowry. With respect to section 306 (abetment of suicide) IPC, the Court said mere suspicion of an extramarital affair did not per se amount to abetment of suicide and prima facie, there was no allegation that the applicant engaged in any behaviour to trigger the victim's suicide. An extramarital relationship per se may not come within the ambit of Section 498-A (cruelty) IPC, it further stated. Noting that the chargesheet was filed after the completion of the investigation and the trial was unlikely to conclude shortly, the Court opined that the continued incarceration of the applicant would serve no fruitful purpose. It also observed that the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the victim had already been discharged, and the sister-in-law, who faced identical charges as the applicant, was on bail. The Court released the applicant subject to certain conditions and said, "The object of granting bail is neither punitive nor preventative. The primary aim sought to be achieved by bail is to secure the attendance of the accused person at the trial."
