Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, has ruled that allegations of cruelty cannot be deemed vague solely because the wife resided in the matrimonial home for a brief period of 25 days.

The court, presided over by Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, while dismissing an application seeking the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), held that “Once the stay of respondent No.2 (wife) in her matrimonial house was only for 25 days, then that short tenure by itself is sufficient to consider the allegations and it cannot be said that since specific dates of atrocities have not been disclosed by respondent No.2, therefore allegations are vague and general in nature.”

The court's observation came upon a complaint filed by a woman, who detailed the harassment and demands for dowry made by her husband and his parents. The complaint also mentioned that the complainant was forcibly sent back to her parents' home and continued to be harassed over the phone.

However, it was argued by the husband and his family (applicants) that the wife’s short stay at her matrimonial home undermined the credibility of her claims. The applicants further pointed out that the FIR was lodged only after an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed on January 9, 2021. Additionally, the respondent No.2 had also filed for divorce under Section 13 of the same act, which was dismissed, while the husband's application for restitution of conjugal rights was allowed. They argued that this sequence of events indicated the falsity of the cruelty allegations.

The court considered the submissions and reviewed the judgment and decree dated May 10, 2023, by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bhopal, regarding both applications under Sections 13 and 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. It reiterated that “the findings recorded by the Civil Court are not binding on the Criminal Court.”

The High Court criticised the trial court’s stance that respondent No.2 should have made preliminary complaints to the police before filing an FIR under Section 498-A of the IPC. The High Court deemed this finding per se illegal, highlighting that “Cruelty does not mean that any cruelty done for demand of some property/ dowry only but any act which may lead the wife to commit suicide or which may be dangerous for her life, limb etc. would also amount to cruelty. If a wife makes a complaint to the Police pointing out the cruelty meted out to her, then apart from other offences, Police will have to register offence under Section 498-A of IPC.”

Another significant point of contention was the trial court’s finding regarding a bank locker opened in the name of respondent No.2, with expenses borne by her. Despite this, the key was held by her mother-in-law. The trial court interpreted this joint locker arrangement as a sign of affection from the mother-in-law, a conclusion the High Court found flawed. The High Court pointed out that the mother-in-law’s retention of the key, despite the locker being respondent No.2’s responsibility, was suspicious and undermined the trial court’s conclusion.

Considering these points, the High Court concluded that the cruelty allegations cannot be dismissed as vague or general simply due to the short duration of the respondent's stay in her matrimonial home. “In view of short period of stay, it cannot be said that allegations are vague. Disclosure of date would be required when allegations are spread for years together,” the court noted.

Consequently, the court concluded that the allegations, if proven, are sufficient to make a case for harassment and cruelty. It stated that whether the appellant was actually harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter for trial, but at this stage, it cannot be concluded that no case is made out. Therefore, quashing the proceedings before trial is not permissible.

 

Cause Title: Ravi Shrivas v State of Madhya Pradesh [M.Cr.C No.12726/2024]