Mental Cruelty Can Happen Even If In-Laws Live Separately, Says Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that mental cruelty is not restricted to physical presence and can be inflicted even if in-laws live separately. The court made this observation while dismissing an application filed by relatives of a man who sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against them by his wife.

Case Details

A division bench comprising Justice Sunil B. Shukre and Justice M. W. Chandwani of Nagpur reviewed a case where the complainant accused her husband’s family of dowry harassment and mental cruelty. The accused were charged under Section 498A, 323, and 524 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The complainant stated that:

The in-laws visited the marital home multiple times and spoke to her over the phone.
During these interactions, they subjected her to humiliation, harassment, and mental cruelty.
One of the accused even threatened to use police influence to suppress criminal proceedings if she did not comply with their demands.

Court’s Observations

The court rejected the argument that separate residence means no cruelty was inflicted. It stated that:

Mental cruelty is subjective—what seems minor to one person could be deeply distressing to another.
Cruelty does not need to happen in person and can be carried out through modern communication methods like phone calls.
The FIR contained strong allegations, supported by witness statements, making it a valid basis for a criminal trial.
The accused had misused legal provisions, despite being aware that the allegations required a full trial.

Legal Precedent and Ruling

The court ruled that mental cruelty is a serious offense and imposed a fine of ₹10,000 on the accused for abusing the legal process. It upheld the FIR as a crucial document that provides the foundation for a criminal case.

The court also clarified that a woman in an extramarital relationship with the complainant’s husband cannot be booked under Section 498A IPC. However, in this case, she was charged not for her relationship but due to her involvement as the husband’s cousin-sister.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces that mental cruelty is not limited to physical abuse and can be inflicted from a distance. It also highlights the importance of FIRs in criminal proceedings and the responsibility of courts to ensure justice for victims of domestic abuse.

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==