The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that refusing to take responsibility for a child’s treatment does not amount to cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court quashed a criminal case filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws, who were accused of neglecting their son and failing to provide financial support for his medical treatment.
The complaint was originally filed by the wife under Sections 498-A, 506, and 354 read with 34 of the IPC, alleging harassment and mistreatment for money by her husband and in-laws. She claimed they did not help with medical expenses when her son needed surgery.
Marriage and Allegations
The complainant and her husband were married in November 2011. Later, the wife accused her husband and in-laws of mistreating her and demanding money from her parents. After the birth of their son in 2015, the wife alleged that her husband and in-laws neglected both her and their child, sending her back to her parents’ house without any support.
She stated that her son had a medical issue that required surgery, but her husband and in-laws failed to provide financial assistance. As a result, she filed a case against them, accusing them of cruelty and intimidation.
Husband’s Defense
The husband and his family approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court, seeking to quash the charges. They argued that the case was filed too late, well beyond the three-year limitation period set under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).
The husband’s legal counsel pointed out that since Section 354 of the IPC had been excluded from the charge sheet, the remaining charges did not carry a punishment of more than three years. This meant the complaint should have been filed within three years of the alleged offenses, which occurred before November 2015. The complaint, however, was only filed in May 2019.
Court’s Decision
Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, who presided over the case, agreed with the husband’s argument. He noted that the magistrate had not recorded a brief note of satisfaction for taking cognizance of the case and that the complaint was filed more than three years after the wife returned to her parents’ home. This was beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
The court further clarified that the husband’s alleged neglect of his wife and child did not fall under the scope of Section 498-A IPC, which is intended to address severe forms of cruelty. The court stated, “Neglect or refusal to visit the child or wife does not qualify as cruelty under Section 498-A.”
Additionally, the court pointed out that there was no justification provided as to why Section 354 of IPC was initially considered but later dropped, and why Section 509, which was included by the investigating officer, was not considered.
In light of these findings, the court quashed the case filed by the wife, ruling that it was barred by the limitation period under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
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==
