Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Only out of ulterior motive to settle personal score, wife makes generalized and sweeping accusation unsupported by concrete evidence. As a result, the family members of husband have to face agony of criminal trial, when no prima facie case is made out against them.
“The wife may be willing to resume her marital life with the husband, but in view of the mental cruelty caused by her, the husband’s unwillingness for reunion is a justifiable one”
“It is not the job of any trained law enforcer, skilled in the efficient use of force continuum to mete out unmerciful, furious beatings to a common man on the drop of the hat and disrespect civilians, wielding their authority to disregard and disrupt law and order themselves.”
The petitioner-husband and Respondent 2-wife agreed to some conditions, including that the petitioner must hand over all documents and certificates belonging to Respondent 2, currently at his residence in India and in the USA, to Respondent 2.
Cruelty under Section 498-A IPC does not necessarily require proof of dowry demands; physical or mental cruelty alone is sufficient.
The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant.
The Court held that the petitioner was the alleged girlfriend of the complainant’s husband, and no other status or relation had been assigned to her for prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC.
The only reference to petitioners 3 and 4 is that, during visits to the accused No. 1 and third respondent’s home, they taunted her for not being able to conceive. Such vague allegations, without specific dates or details, cannot withstand legal scrutiny.
Even after assuming, that such relationship existed between petitioner and his sister-in-law, or demeaning language in reference to the deceased, was exchanged via WhatsApp between them, these facts, stand alone, do not, prima facie, disclose the specific ingredients of cruelty or harassment related to dowry demand.
The Court opined that impugned provisions do not warrant judicial interference, because it is well-settled law that courts refrain from intervening in matters of legislative policy or mandate
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
When the cross-examination was done in respect of attempted suicide by wife, she appeared before the Court by applying Mehandi on her hand to suppress the evidence of attempted suicide.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“Self-pleasure is not a forbidden fruit, its indulgence shall not lead to a precipitous fall from the Eden Garden of marriage. After marriage, a woman becomes a spouse, but she continues to retain her individuality. Her fundamental identity as an individual, as a woman, is not subsumed by her spousal status”.
“Subjecting a married woman to cruelty for want of dowry was the reason for which our legislature has inserted Section 498-A in the Penal Code. In the case at hand, there is no allegation of demand of dowry.”
“Forcing wife to live with a person who is neither educated nor eager to improve himself certainly amounts to mental cruelty.”
The allegations submitted by Respondent 2 cannot amount to cruelty under Section 498-A of Penal Code, 1860 as each person shall act in his own way and the said act independently shall amount to cruelty.
Such matters are now filed in the heat of the moment on advice of counsel by exaggerating and misconstruing actual events. However, this does not mean that genuine cases of harassment didn’t exist, and it is not blind to the ground reality of the deeply rooted social evil of greed for dowry.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.