Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the applicant-husband under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, opined that the specific incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse recounted in this case, unveiled a troubling reality, where the marriage was distorted into a vessel of unchecked dominance and entitlement. The Court opined that the severity of the exploitation in the present case was compounded by the additional factors of physical and emotional violence inflicted upon the victim by her husband and his family. The use of force, coercion, and intimidation to extract compliance from the wife underscored the systemic nature of the abuse and the lengths to which perpetrators would go to maintain their power and control. Thus, the Court opined that the accused persons in the present case should be dealt with a stern hand and did not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the husband.
Background
On 15-07-2021, the applicant-husband and the complainant-wife got married. The wife stated that on the first night of the marriage, the husband came home drunk and told the wife that he could do whatever he wanted to do with her to satisfy his physical hunger, and even after the wife’s refusal, the husband forcibly had anal sexual intercourse with the wife and had also beaten her. It was also stated that on 21-07-2021, when the wife went to parental home, her husband and father-in-law accompanied her and insulted her parents and taunted her for not giving enough dowry.
Subsequently, after a few days of marriage, when the wife asked her husband, as to why he did not go to any work, he informed her that he was not employed, but during her marriage she was informed that he had a government job. The wife stated that her in-laws also told her that they had brought a cow to milch for their son, therefore why should their son work, and the wife’s salary would fulfil all their needs. The husband started demanded the wife’s entire salary and forced her to disclose her ATM PIN and had taken Rs. 30,000 in cash from her. The wife stated that the husband used to forcibly make physical relations with her and when she resisted, he used to slap her. Further, due to his forced sexual activities, she started having physical complications, and when she asked the husband to take her to the doctor, he abused her and told her, that her father had not given her enough so that she could be taken to the doctor. Therefore, she requested her family members for medical help. The wife also came to know that the husband was having an extramarital affair with many women, and he also used to make pornographic movies, and when she asked him about his extra marital affairs, he threatened to defame her.
The wife further stated that on 14-10-2021, the husband had consumed alcohol with his father, uncle, and friends who advised him to make an inappropriate sexual video of the wife, and on the same night, the husband insisted on making such a video. However, when she refused, the husband switched on the mobile camera, forcibly assaulted her, and threatened to kill her. Further, when confronted about their misbehaviour by the wife’s parents, the husband kicked the wife’s father with the intention of killing him and misbehaved with her mother while leaving her parental home. Further, they also threatened that if the wife failed to bring Rs. 50 lakhs, they would kill her. Thus, the wife had filed the present FIR.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that it was an irony of the situation that in several cases, the factum of a woman not working became the source of her handicap, as the woman had a fear of being stigmatized or faced with a dilemma regarding where she would go, in case she was thrown out of her matrimonial home, and her parental home might also not be easily accessible or welcoming to her.
The Court opined that in the present case, the allegations are neither vague, nor lacked in specificity regarding dates, locations, and the manner in which the incidents occurred, including demands for dowry. The Court opined that a perusal of the record clearly revealed that a pattern of abuse and exploitation perpetrated by the husband, demonstrated a blatant disregard for her well-being and autonomy. It was shocking that as a married earning woman, even to pay the doctor’s fee and buying medicines, she had to ask the husband, who told her that her father had not given enough money for the same. Further, the Court opined that the mindset and the behaviour was clearly brought out by the allegations, that the husband did not even take her to the doctor though she had contracted sexually transmitted disease from him, and her family had to take her to the hospital and doctors.
The Court opined that considering the gravity of the offence committed by the husband, and also the fact that the thought process and thinking of the husband, that he was entitled by virtue of his marriage with the wife, to sexually, physically, and economically abuse her to the extent as mentioned in the complaint, went against the very intent of the law of this country. The Court opined that the specific incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse recounted in this case, unveiled a troubling reality, where the marriage was distorted into a vessel of unchecked dominance and entitlement.
The Court opined that “being labelled and continuously called and reminded repeatedly that she had a status of a mere as a cow meant only for milking or a golden hen expected to lay golden eggs is deeply disturbing and indicative of the dehumanizing treatment the victim endured, which highlights the systemic issue of objectification and exploitation of women within certain societal frameworks.”
The Court opined that the severity of the exploitation in the present case was compounded by the additional factors of physical and emotional violence inflicted upon the victim by her husband and his family. The use of force, coercion, and intimidation to extract compliance from the victim underscored the systemic nature of the abuse and the lengths to which perpetrators would go to maintain their power and control. Thus, the Court opined that the accused persons in the present case should be dealt with a stern hand and did not find any ground to grant anticipatory bail to the husband.
[Nitin Kumar Tomar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 752, decided on 05-02-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: C.M. Grover, Advocate;
For the Respondent: Satish Kumar, APP for the State with ASI Deval, P.S. Karawal Nagar, R.N. Dubey and Tarun Garg, Advocates.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
