Latest news with #Section498AIPC
Time of India
6 days ago
- Time of India
HC: Mere custody of child with husband not cruelty
New Delhi: The custody of the child being with the husband can't be the sole ground to allege cruelty or harassment in a marriage, Delhi High Court said recently. It ended the criminal proceedings lodged by a woman against her husband and in-laws. The court found the case to be one of misuse of dowry harassment and cruelty provisions, which were slapped against the husband and his parents just because he sought a divorce. "The matrimonial differences led to the separation, and the custody of the child was with the husband and the petitioners (his parents). However, merely because the child was in the custody of the husband after disputes inter se arose, cannot be equated with cruelty or harassment as envisaged under Section 498A IPC," Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said. Further stating that essential ingredients to attract 498A of the IPC were missing, the court quashed the FIR and chargesheet. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "Experience over past so many years has shown that while in some cases it may have been really successful in dealing with the situation and also address issues of dowry demands to some extent, but in many of the reported cases, it has been found to be used as a mean and an arm-twisting tactic to settle the other dispute which may arise in the matrimonial relationship. It has become an easy tool in the hands of the complainants to settle the scores by getting false FIRs registered containing the exaggerated and manipulated allegations," the court added. The court further observed that the matrimonial relationship did not work out well between the husband and wife. However, "in order to bring the petitioners to their knees and to concede to the expectations of the complainant, the present FIR has been registered."According to the petition, the couple got married in 2007, but soon the wife's behaviour became worse day by day as she was becoming more aggressive and uncontrollable, even against the child born of the union. When the husband later sought a divorce, the wife responded by registering a dowry harassment case against his family.
News18
09-07-2025
- News18
‘Committing Adultery Once Or Twice Not Same As Living In Adultery': HC Grants Maintenance To Woman
Last Updated: 'A mere lapse, one or two, can't be said to be living in adultery. If it is followed up by a further adulterous life, the woman can be said to be 'living in adultery'," the HC said Drawing a sharp distinction between 'committing adultery" and 'living in adultery", the Patna High Court (HC) observed that 'a mere lapse, whether it is one or two, and a return back to a normal life cannot be said to be living in adultery". The Patna High Court on July 7 granted maintenance to a woman previously denied support by a family court on the grounds of alleged adultery. The bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar drew a crucial distinction between 'committing adultery" and 'living in adultery". The HC underscored that a wife is disqualified from receiving maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC only if she is proven to be 'living in adultery", a continuous course of conduct, not a one-time lapse. 'A mere lapse, whether it is one or two, and a return back to a normal life cannot be said to be living in adultery. If the lapse is continued and followed up by a further adulterous life, the woman can be said to be 'living in adultery'," the HC observed. Bulbul Khatoon and her minor son Danish Raza, filed a maintenance petition in 2017 against Md. Shamshad, her husband and father of the child. While the family court had directed Shamshad to pay Rs. 4,000 per month to his son, it rejected Bulbul's claim, citing alleged adultery and a divorce reportedly executed through a local religious institution, namely Darul Kaja Edara Sharia, Koshi Commissionery, Purnia. The high court, however, found that the talaqnama produced by Shamshad lacked Bulbul's signature and did not satisfy the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India, which held triple talaq to be void and unconstitutional. 'Hence, Bulbul Khatoon cannot be held to be a divorced wife. There is also no pleading or evidence on record to prove that Bulbul Khatoon has been divorced by Md. Shamshad by any other legal mode," court held. Justice Kumar further noted that allegations of Bulbul's illicit relationship with one Md. Tarikat had not been proved by her husband. None of the seven defense witnesses, including Shamshad, could provide conclusive proof of adultery. On the other hand, Bulbul had placed on record sufficient evidence that she had been living at her parental home along with her minor son. The high court also found that Bulbul had been forced out of her matrimonial home after failing to meet dowry demands, and had since been living at her parental home without means to support herself. A pending criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC further supported her version of events. Considering these findings, court ordered Md. Shamshad to pay Bulbul Khatoon Rs. 2,000 per month from October 30, 2017, the date on which the original maintenance application was filed. It also revised the maintenance for the minor son Danish Raza, making it effective from the same date rather than the family court's order date of April 4, 2020. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
05-06-2025
- Time of India
SC: Cop pulling in-laws into cruelty case unfortunate
NEW DELHI: Expressing concern over misuse of Sec 498A of IPC that criminalises cruelty in matrimonial homes and dowry harassment, Supreme Court has quashed a case lodged 23 years ago by a Delhi Police woman sub-inspector against her husband, a colleague, and his entire family. Allowing the husband's appeal and quashing the case, a bench of justices B V Nagarathna and Satish C Sharma exercised SC's exclusive powers under Art 142 of the Con-stitution to quash the FIR lodged in 2002 at Malviya Nagar in Delhi and the charge sheet filed against the policeman, his parents and five sisters. "It is rather unfortunate that the complainant being an officer of the state has initiated criminal machinery in such a manner, where the aged parents-in-law, five sisters and one tailor have been arrayed as accused," it said. 'Growing tendency to misuse legal provisions' Writing the judgment, Justice Sharma said: "Even if the allegations and the case of the prosecution is taken at face value, apart from the bald allegations without any specifics of time, date or place, there is no incriminating material found by the prosecution or rather produced by the complainant to substantiate the ingredients of 'cruelty' under Section 498A IPC." The court said there were genuine cases of dowry harassment and cruelty in matrimonial homes but flagged the "growing tendency to misuse legal provisions" by women to rope in relatives of their husbands. The man and woman, both sub-inspectors in Delhi Police, had got married in Feb 1998 as per Buddhist rites. Alleging persistent torture for more dowry ever since the solemnisation of marriage, the woman lodged a police complaint in July 2002. A chargesheet was filed against the man and his relatives in July 2004. The magistrate had framed charges in June 2008.
Deccan Herald
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Deccan Herald
'Distressed by malicious misuse of dowry laws': Supreme Court
The court pointed out that the term 'cruelty' used in Section 498A IPC is subject to 'rather cruel misuse' by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least.
Time of India
23-04-2025
- Time of India
Growing trend of dowry victim indicting husband's kin: SC
There is growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives of the husband, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said and quashed a dowry harassment case against a woman's parents-in-law. For a bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra it appeared there were "omnibus and general allegations" against the woman's sister-in-law, husband and father-in-law. The top court, however, observed the allegation of any physical torture by the appellants was missing. "The allegation is only of taunt and statement that they are highly placed having political influence and connection with ministers as such they instigated accused 1 (husband) to accused 3 ( husband's parents) to pressurise the de-facto complainant to get additional dowry," it said. 5 5 Next Stay Playback speed 1x Normal Back 0.25x 0.5x 1x Normal 1.5x 2x 5 5 / Skip Ads by The order added, "Considering the growing trend of the dowry victim arraigning the relatives of the husband, this court has deprecated the practice involving the relatives of the husband for the offence under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961." Referring to its decisions, the bench said it has reiterated and deprecated the practice of involving the relatives of the husband in dowry related matters. Live Events In this case, the marriage between the complainant and her husband took place at Guntur, Andhra Pradesh in 2014. Five months into the marriage, the woman left her husband and started living with her parents. She went back to her matrimonial home but returned to her parents eventually. The husband sent a legal notice to her followed by a petition for restitution of conjugal rights in 2015. During the pendency of this proceeding, she lodged a complaint before the police in 2016. However, a compromise was arrived at and the husband withdrew the case. She subsequently left for the US without intimating the husband or his family members and the dispute continued. The husband moved a petition for dissolution of marriage on June 21, 2016 and as a counterblast she again lodged a police complaint against six accused persons, including the present appellants.
