Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench, held that allegations of harassment under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) can be sustained even after the dissolution of marriage. The ruling came during the final disposal of an application seeking the quashing of an FIR and related proceedings.

The bench comprising Justice Shailesh P. Brahme and Justice Mangesh S. Patil, held that the wife was subjected to cruelty during the subsistence of marriage owing to which the charges, as contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC, will be attracted.

The case in question involved a marriage between Meer Akbar Ali
(Husband) and Meer Sakina Mohatashim (wife), solemnized under Muslim rights on October 27, 2022. Following marital discord, the couple executed a 'Khula-Nama' on February 19, 2023, effectively dissolving their marital ties. However, on May 19, 2023, Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR against the applicants, alleging offences under Sections 269, 498-A, and 34 of the IPC, among others.

The crux of the complaint highlighted the extravagant expenditure incurred by the Meer Sakina’s father during the wedding and subsequent mental and physical harassment faced by the wife. Allegedly, the husband had concealed a contagious ailment, tinea cruris, and refused physical contact, leading to the dissolution of the marriage through 'Khula-Nama'.

The husband’s counsel, Advocate K.N. Farooqui, argued that no offence under Section 498-A could be established as the marital ties had been severed. The applicants cited a prior dismissal of proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights, emphasising the absence of a marital relationship.

In response, the wife, represented by Advocate P.V. Diggikar,  contended that specific allegations and incriminating evidence existed, pointing to the complicity of the applicants. The respondents argued that “ill-treatment stated in the complaint was of the period when the marriage was subsisting,” while relying on a judgment from the Gujarat High Court, titled Rameshbhai Danjibhai Solanki and others Versus State of Gujarat, to support their stance.

After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the evidence, the court opined that “the allegations of ill-treatment are specific against the applicants and incriminating material is available to proceed against them. ‘Khula-Nama’ executed between the couple corroborates the mental agony suffered by the informant (wife).”

The court further held that despite the dissolution of marriage, the ill-treatment had occurred while the marital ties were intact, thus warranting the application of Section 498-A.

Addressing the main issue in the present case, “whether a divorced wife can maintain complaint for offence under Section 498-A against her ex-husband and his relatives?”, the court said, “A victim of harassment contemplated by Section 498-A is a ‘woman’. The intention of the legislature to use word ‘woman’ and not ‘wife’ could be to enable even a divorcee to maintain proceedings in respect of harassment suffered by her when the marriage was subsisting.”

In light of these precedents and the circumstances of the case, the court rejected the application seeking the quashing of the FIR, holding that it is not a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

 

Cause Title: Meer Akbar Ali v. State of Maharashtra [CA No. 2050 of 2023]