Child Being In Husband's Custody After Matrimonial Dispute Not Cruelty Or Harassment U/S 498A IPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that the child being in custody of the husband after matrimonial disputes arise between the parties is not cruelty or harassment under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

“…merely because the child was in the custody of the husband after disputes interse arose, cannot be equated with cruelty or harassment as envisaged under Section 498A IPC,” Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the mother in law and father in law of the complainant wife seeking quashing of the chargesheet filed against them in an FIR registered by the wife in 2015, in retaliation to the divorce case filed by the husband.

While the matrimonial differences led to the separation of the parties, but the custody of the child was with the husband and his parents.

It was the husband's case that the wife was suffering from violent psychotic fits which was concealed by her family from him and his family members.

Apart from the FIR, the wife also filed complaints seeking maintenance, alleging dowry harassment and domestic violence.

Quashing the chargesheet against the petitioners, the Court observed that it was a case where the matrimonial relationship did not work out well between the husband and wife and in order to bring the in laws to their knees and to concede to the expectations of the wife, FIR was registered against them.

It added that Section 498A of IPC has become an easy tool in the hands of the complainants to settle the scores by getting false FIRs registered containing the exaggerated and manipulated allegations.

The Court noted that there was no averment that any demand for dowry was made either prior or at the time for the expenditure incurred in the function of marriage and that the wife's family had performed the marriage according to their status, and had spent money accordingly.

“While the Petitioners had claimed that she suffered from Bipolar Maniac Disorder, but whatever may have been her mental psychological indicators, there is nothing to show that there was any forced medication being given to the Complainant or that it resulted in any harm to her health. It cannot be said from these vague allegations that the act of cruelty was being committed upon her on this account,” the Court said.

“Present case is a classic example of misuse of the salutary provision of Section 498A IPC by the Complainant.The contents of the Complaint and the Chargesheet, clearly show that it is an abuse and misuse of the process of the Court, resorted to by the Complainant to use it as a tool for compelling the Petitioners to relent to her expectations,” it added.

Justice Krishna observed that while the true victims must get justice but the Courts must ensure that Section 498A of IPC is not be permitted to be misused and abused in order to ensure the credibility and faith in the justice delivery system.

The Court noted that there was an adjustment issue between the wife and her husband which was given a colour of dowry harassment and that the FIR was registered as a counterblast to the divorce case filed by the husband.

While the Court quashed the chargesheet, it refused to quash the complaint case registered by the wife under the Domestic Violence Act. She had sought reliefs for Protection, Residence Order, Monetary Relief, Custody of the child as well as Compensation.

The Court observed that even if the contention of in laws was accepted that there was no domestic violence, but the right of the wife to claim residence was still maintainable.

“As already noted above, it is essentially a civil proceeding and whether the Respondent-wife is entitled to the reliefs sought by her in her petition under Section 12 of the DV Act is a matter to be adjudicated upon by the Learned MM after considering the case on its merits. It cannot be held at this stage, that the proceedings are vexatious or that outrightly no cause of action is disclosed in the Petition and is liable to be quashed,” the Court said.

Title: X v. Y

Click Here To Read/Download Order