The Madhya Pradesh High Court has noted that a number of wives are filing a package of five (5) cases against their Husband and their family members under Section 498A (cruelty to women.)
Justice Vivek Rusia noted that various High Courts and the Supreme Court have found that Section 498A of the IPC, which punishes husband or relative abuse, is being misused.
RelatedPosts
“There are 5 cases against the husband and family members in family court and criminal court under IPC, Hindu Marriage Act, and Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005,” the Court noted.
The Court heard arguments to dismiss a first information report (FIR) alleging a husband and his family of Section 498A, IPC (husband or relative of the spouse of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and inflicting harm.
The Court dismissed this criminal prosecution, calling it “reverse cruelty” to the accused.
The judge noted that it is common for husband and wife to work abroad while their parents face criminal or matrimonial litigation in India. The complainant-woman was residing abroad while pursuing criminal cases against family members in India.
The woman filed a FIR against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, and husband’s sister-in-law.
After her husband left for Australia, the lady claimed that her in-laws mistreated her and threw her out of the house, stating that her parents did not complete their demand for ₹10 lakh and a car.
The husband also received an ex-parte divorce decision from an Australian court. The Court also found the FIR in an improper place. The accused were permanent residents of Gurgaon, whereas Indore, where the FIR was recorded, was simply the venue of marriage.
The Court was unimpressed by the accused’s pain and dowry claims.
“The husband and wife live in Australia. The Indian criminal case is harassing the husband’s parents. The Court said there is no accusation that her husband demanded dowry when he left India for Australia.
With these considerations, the Court dismissed the criminal case and approved the complainant’s in-laws’ request.
Advocate Amar Singh Rathore represented applicants. Advocate Sudarshan Josh represented the State. Advocate Jerry Lopez represented the complainant. CRIMINAL CASE No. 35596 of 2018
