The Supreme Court has cautioned against the misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial cases, stating that vague allegations against husbands and their relatives can lead to abuse of the legal system.
An Indore court ruled that a wife has the right to live in dignity according to her husband’s status and ordered the husband to pay ₹25 lakh as lump sum and ₹15,000 per month as maintenance.
The Bombay High Court ruled that it cannot make Section 498A IPC, which criminalizes cruelty to wives, a compoundable offense. The court stated that such changes fall under the legislature’s authority, despite recommendations to amend the law.
The Orissa High Court ruled that an IPC 498A case cannot be dismissed just because the marriage is invalid. The decision ensures that women in such relationships still receive legal protection.
The Madras High Court has ruled that a husband’s extramarital affair causing severe mental trauma to his wife qualifies as mental cruelty under Section 498A IPC. This decision underscores the legal consequences of infidelity in marriage.
In the Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) case, the court ruled that petty quarrels do not amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The court emphasized that cruelty must be severe and ongoing to be legally recognized.
A Delhi court has refused to grant maintenance to Shiny Verma Bakshi, an MBA graduate, citing her qualifications and ability to find employment. The court emphasized that maintenance is not an absolute right and highlighted her capacity to support herself.
The Madras High Court reinstated a suspended officer who suffered cruelty and desertion by his wife, noting the unfortunate absence of domestic violence laws for men.
The Bombay High Court highlights misuse of Section 498A, protecting distant relatives from wrongful accusations. Justice Vibha Kankanwadi quashes proceedings against Jyoti Patil, stressing the importance of valid evidence.
