The Bombay High Court recently stated that mental cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC can still happen even if in-laws live separately from the woman. The court ruled that cruelty doesn’t need to be physical or take place in the same home to be valid under the law.
A division bench of Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani (Nagpur bench) dismissed an application filed by relatives of a man. They were seeking to cancel criminal proceedings filed against them by his wife, who had accused them of dowry demands and cruelty.
The woman had filed a complaint under Sections 498A, 323, and 504 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. She alleged that although the in-laws lived separately, they would visit the marital home or contact her by phone and harass, humiliate, and mentally abuse her.
The court observed that modern communication tools like phones can be used to cause mental trauma, and physical presence is not necessary to inflict cruelty. “Mental cruelty is an abstract concept. It depends on the experience and perception of the person suffering,” said the court.
The court emphasized that the FIR (First Information Report) contained specific allegations against each applicant, including a claim that one of the relatives threatened the woman using her police influence to suppress the complaint unless the woman accepted her husband’s behavior.
Although one of the women accused was said to have had an illicit relationship with the complainant’s husband, the court clarified that she wasn’t charged for that alone. Instead, she was accused in her role as the husband’s cousin, based on her involvement in the harassment.
The court also rejected the applicants’ argument that FIRs lack legal weight, saying:
“While the FIR itself may not be evidence, it forms the foundation of a criminal case. If the FIR contains solid allegations, it can build a strong case.”
The judges criticized the applicants for misusing legal processes despite the serious nature of the accusations and imposed a penalty of ₹10,000 on them. The application to cancel the criminal case was dismissed.
Case Title:
Sunita Kumari and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Another
Be a part our social media community:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/IndianMan.in?mibextid=ZbWKwL
Instagram:
https://www.instagram.com/indianman.in?igsh=MWZ2N3N0ZmpwM3l3cw==
