Mere Inability To Adjust With In-Laws Compelling Wife To Live Separately Is Not Mental Cruelty: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that the mere inability of a wife to adjust with her in-laws, leading her to live separately, does not amount to mental cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Dr. Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee held: "There is also no material to suggest that there had been any wilful conduct on the part of husband or any in law of such a nature as was likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury as danger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical. Mere inability to adjust or absence of sweet relationship, compelling wife to live separately at others family does not amount to even “mental cruelty” as defined under the section."
On August 21, 2022, the opposite party no. 2 lodged an FIR against the petitioners on the allegations that since the marriage of opposite party no. 2/wife with the petitioner no. 1, she has been subjected to mental and physical torture by the petitioners/in-laws. Due to such continuous torture and oppression, the opposite party no.2 had to leave her matrimonial home.
It has been further alleged that all the stridhan belongings of the opposite party no. 2 are forcefully kept at the matrimonial house of the opposite party no.2. It is also alleged that the petitioner no. 1, being the husband of the defacto complainant/opposite party no.2, had also cheated the father of the opposite party no.2, for which he had to face huge monetary loss.
It is further alleged that the petitioner no. 1 slapped the complainant/opposite party no. 2 and started kicking her and attempted to throttle her with the intention to kill her.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant has an extramarital affair, and after coming to know about such an illicit relation, the petitioner no.1/husband raised an objection, when the opposite party no.2 became violent and threatened the petitioner no.1 with dire consequences. It was stated that the Opposite party no. 2 was residing at present with the person with whom she has an extramarital affair.
It was submitted that the wife had taken all her belongings and eloped while abandoning the petitioner and his family and that the present proceeding is a malicious attempt on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 to implicate the petitioners with the threat of arrest and prosecution.
He further submitted that the present proceeding is also barred by limitation as the offence under section 498A or 406 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a period of three years, and under section 468 of Cr.P.C., the court is not supposed to take cognisance of an offence after three years.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no.2 contended that at this stage of considering a petition for quashing criminal proceedings, the allegations in the FIR must be accepted as they stand and the court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the State placed the case diary and submitted that there are sufficient materials against the present petitioners in the case diary which includes the statements recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the investigation has already been culminated into a charge sheet and as such it would not be proper to quash the proceeding without giving an opportunity to the prosecution to prove their case.
Upon hearing the arguments, the court noted that from the statement of witnesses, it only appeared that the incident of ruckus and assault by fist and blow by Petitioner No.1/husband had taken place on one particular day and such a solitary incident of ruckus as alleged and/or assault by fist and blow does not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 498 A of the IPC.
Moreover, it noted that, in the present case, the FIR was lodged after 25 years of marriage, without any explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR against the petitioners.
Accordingly, the court held that since there were no particulars in the complaint filed against the complainants in-laws, they would not be liable for cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC.
It thus quashed the case.
Case: Sumanlal Kodialbail & Ors vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case No: CRR 3747 of 2022