Question Details

XII. Quashing a case of cruelty that was filed against a man by his wife, the Bombay High Court said that if a married lady is asked to do household work for the family, it cannot be said that she is treated “like a maid servant”. The Court was hearing an application by the husband and his parents seeking that proceedings against them are quashed. A First Information Report (“FIR”) was filed against the trio in September 2020, around nine months after the marriage, alleging that they hounded the woman for money to purchase a car, harassed her mentally and physically and treated her like a maid servant. Examining the evidence, the Court found that there was no merit to the woman’s allegations. The Court said that though the FIR says that she was treated properly for about a month and then “like a maid servant”, there are no details of what this meant. The Court added: “If a married lady is asked to do household work for the purpose of the family, it cannot be said that it is like a maid servant.” The Court held that the mere use of the word harassment “mentally and physically” in the FIR is not sufficient to constitute an offence Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”), which punishes the husband, or a relative of the husband of a woman who subjects her to cruelty in any way. It is interesting to note that Section 498A of the IPC also provides that if a married woman is actually treated like a ‘maid servant’, it would be an offence under that Section.


In April 2020, Ashwin’s friend Rakesh visits Ashwin and Ashima’s home, and stays with them for a few days. During his visit, he is very mean to Ashima, and uses abusive language with her. He also threw a plate at her one evening when he was unhappy with the meal that she had prepared. Ashima now claims that Rakesh has committed an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Is she likely to succeed?

Options

A

No, since Rakesh’s actions were perfectly justifiable for a man who does not get a well-cooked meal.

B

Yes, since Rakesh’s use of abusive language and throwing the plate at Ashima clearly amount to cruelty.

C

No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin.

D

Yes, since Rakesh was staying at Ashwin and Ashima’s home at the time of the incident.

Show Answer

Correct Answer :

Option C

No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin.

Solution :

Correct Answer: No, since Rakesh is not her husband, nor is he related to Ashwin.


Step-by-Step Explanation:


1. Understanding the Legal Provision (Section 498A IPC):
According to the passage provided, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) specifically targets and punishes "the husband, or a relative of the husband of a woman who subjects her to cruelty". Therefore, for an offense to be committed under Section 498A IPC, the accused person must strictly be either:
- The husband of the woman, or
- A relative of the husband.


2. Analyzing the Facts of the Case:
In the given scenario, Rakesh is merely a friend of Ashwin (Ashima's husband) who visited and stayed with them. He is neither Ashima's husband nor is he related to Ashwin in any manner.


3. Conclusion:
Even though Rakesh's conduct was abusive and hostile, he cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A of the IPC because he does not fall within the scope of persons covered by the statute (i.e., husband or relative of the husband). Thus, Ashima is not likely to succeed under Section 498A against Rakesh.

Unlock Our Free Library

Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.

Discover more resources

You may also like

Mock Tests

View All
  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

  • CLAT
  • intermediate
  • 2 hours
  • current affairs, english, general knowledge, legal reasoning, logical reasoning, quant

Ask AI Tutor
5 left
Q1 View Question & Options
AI Tutor is solving this question...
Reading question context & options...