Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, in a significant verdict, has ruled that to constitute the offence of cruelty, physical presence is not necessary and mental cruelty can continue to happen despite the wife living separately from the husband at her parental home.

The court, presided over by Justice GS Ahluwalia, made the observation while refusing to quash a First Information Report (FIR) against the husband. The court noted that “If a married woman is turned out of her matrimonial house on account of non fulfillment of demand of dowry, then the wife might be residing in her parental home and physical cruelty might have come to an end but the separation on the account of demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to the wife would continue to haunt her which would amount to mental cruelty and under these circumstances, it can be said that the mental cruelty would continue even after the ousting or leaving her matrimonial house and residing in her parental home.”

The court was deliberating on a plea filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), seeking the quashing of FIR pertaining to offences under Section 498-A, dealing with the offence of “Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty,” read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The applicants (husband and his family) opposed not only the FIR but also the framing of charges on several grounds. It was contended that the entire incident in question occurred in Indore, thus disputing the jurisdiction of the FIR lodged at Kareli. Furthermore, it was emphasised that “The FIR was lodged by way of counter blast to the petition filed by applicant No. 1(husband) for grant of divorce.”

Additionally, it was argued that wife’s (respondent) father, was a practicing advocate in Narsinghpur and resided in Kareli, potentially influencing the choice of filing the FIR there and that the respondent herself did not reside in Kareli at he parental home.

The court while addressing the question - “Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground of counter blast to the petition for divorce?”, emphasised that the timing of lodging an FIR in response to a divorce petition did not necessarily render it a retaliatory measure or a counter blast, particularly if efforts to reconcile had been exhausted. “On the contrary, it shows that every effort was made by the wife to save her marital life and when she lost all the hopes, then she decided to lodge the FIR, then the same cannot be quashed,” the court said.

The court further stressed that mere filing of a divorce petition by the husband did not warrant the quashing of criminal proceedings, underscoring the separate nature of civil and criminal litigation. “the law on the issue stands crystallised to the effect that the findings of fact recorded by the civil court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice versa,” the court noted.

Another key issue considered by the court was "Whether the respondent No. 2 is residing in Kareli or not?”, which was her parental home. In this regard, the applicants pointed to a service report from the process server. According to this report, when the notice of divorce petition was dispatched to Respondent No. 2 at her father's address, it was returned citing her residence in Indore along with her in-laws. However, the applicants contested the accuracy of this report, asserting that Respondent No. 2 did not reside with them in Indore.

 

The court underscored the seriousness of the allegations under Section 498-A of the IPC, emphasising that cruelty could manifest in both physical and mental forms. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Rupali Devi v. State of U.P. (2019) 5 SCC 384, the court elucidated on the expansive interpretation of cruelty, including its psychological ramifications even after leaving the matrimonial home.

The court noted that “In this case, since the respondent No. 2 has claimed that she is residing in Kareli, therefore, Police Station Kareli, has jurisdiction to investigate the matter.” Additionally, the court highlighted that a transfer of a significant sum of money amounting to Rs 5 Lakhs was made from Kareli, which further solidified the jurisdiction of the Police Station Kareli, as also observed by the revisional court.

Furthermore, the court delved into the contentious issue of “Whether the FIR has been lodged with a malafide intentions only because of the facts that father of respondent No. 2 is a practicing lawyer at Kareli, District Narsinghpur.” The court dismissed the argument regarding malafide intent behind the FIR, stating that “merely because if relative of a complainant is a practicing lawyer would not make the FIR vulnerable because the Court is required to consider the allegations made in the FIR and not the status of the complainant or his/her relatives.”

The court affirmed that charges must be framed based on the allegations outlined in the FIR. Addressing any discrepancies in the framing of charges, the court directed the applicants to utilise legal recourse available under Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) if they believed there were inaccuracies in the charges.

Conclusively, the court dismissed the application noting that “no case is made out warranting interference.”

 

Cause Title: Tamish Saluja v State of Madhya Pradesh [MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 16003 of 2024]