Dismissing a domestic violence case, the Bombay High Court ruled that a married woman being told to do household work would not result in a case of domestic cruelty as mentioned under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Delivering the judgement, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay HC said that a married woman will not be seen as a “maid servant” on being asked to engage in household work. If the woman had any reservations against doing household work, she should have communicated the same before marriage to the groom’s family as the prior knowledge may alter their decision, the division bench of Justices Vibha V Kankanwadi and Rajesh S Patil further observed on October 21, reported The Indian Express, adding that the complainant’s FIR did not mention the fact whether a housemaid was already present.
Also Read | SC Collegium recommends elevation of Bombay HC Chief Justice Dipankar Datta as Supreme Court judge
In her complaint, the woman mentioned that she was being treated as a housemaid since she got married in December 2019. The woman had further claimed that she was mentally and physically tortured by her in-laws after she had refused to pay them Rs 4 lakh after marriage for buying a car as she claimed that her father was not well off, reported IE.
Claiming that she was physically tortured on June 27, 2020, an FIR was lodged in Nanded Police station and the woman’s husband and his family were booked under several provisions of the IPC including Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) were also added in the domestic violence case.
The husband and his family moved the court seeking to quash the FIR, claiming that the woman had filed similar charges against her previous husband and his family, pointing out that they were acquitted by the court.
Also read| Apex court seeks govt response on surrogacy PIL
The court, dismissing the allegations, said that any earlier legal recourse taken by the woman did not mean that she was in the habit of making similar complaints. However, quashing the FIR, the HC said that unless the charges of mental and physical harassment are “described,” it is not enough to implicate the husband and his family under the said crimes.
“The allegations that have been made and the collection of evidence is not sufficient even at this prima facie stage to attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498 A of the IPC,” said the HC as reported by IE.
