Source: Bombay High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Bombay High Court in the matter of Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., has held that commenting on wife’s cooking skills is not cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

What was the Background of Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Case?

• In this case, the Respondent (Wife) alleged that her husband, Amol Salunkhe, failed to establish a conjugal relationship with her since their marriage date. She also accused her in-laws of taunting and insulting her.
• The allegation levelled against the petitioners who were the brother and cousin of the husband of respondent is that they commented that respondent does not know how to cook and that her parents have not taught her anything.
• First Information Report (FIR) was registered against the petitioners under Section 498A of IPC.
• Thereafter, a petition was filed before the High Court for quashing of the FIR.
• Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the FIR.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• A division bench comprising Justices Anuja Prabhudessai and N.R. Borkar observed that commenting that a woman doesn't know how to cook is not cruelty and would not constitute an offence under section 498A of IPC.
• The Court further observed that petty quarrels do not constitute cruelty within the meaning of section 498A of IPC. To constitute an offence under this section, there must be prima facie material to prove willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury, and that she was harassed to satisfy unlawful dowry demands.

What is Section 498A of IPC?

About:

• Section 498A was introduced in the year 1983 to protect married women from being subjected to cruelty by the husband or his relatives.
  • Section 84 of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) deals with the same provision.
• It states that if the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjected such woman towards cruelty would be punished with imprisonment for a term which might extend to 3 years and may also be liable for fine.
• For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means—
  • any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
  • harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
• The offence under this section is a cognizable and a non bailable offence.
• The complaint under Section 498-A may be filed by the women aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption. And if there is no such relative, then by any public servant as may be notified by the State Government on this behalf.
• A complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 498-A can be filed within 3 years of the alleged incident. However, Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) enables the Court to take cognizance of an offence after the period of limitation if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.

Essential Elements:

• For commission of an offence under Section 498-A, following necessary elements are required to be satisfied:
  • The woman must be married;
  • She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment;
  • Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband.

Case Laws

• In the case of Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas, (1999), the Supreme Court held that the essence of the offence in Section 498-A is cruelty. It is a continuing offence and on each occasion on which the woman was subjected to cruelty, she would have a new starting point of limitation.
• In the case of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009), the Supreme Court held that for holding an accused guilty under Section 498A of IPC, it has to be established that the woman has been subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in close proximity of time to the lodging of the complaint and petty quarrels cannot be termed as cruelty to attract the provisions of Section 498A of IPC.