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.


Frustrated and upset with her marriage, Ashima applies for and is granted a divorce from Ashwin in November 2020. Since she and Ashwin had been friends for many years before they got married, she stays in touch with him. She moves into her own apartment and starts going to office regularly at a new job. Ashwin is very upset at this and starts treating Ashima very cruelly. Ashima again claims that Ashwin has committed an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. Is she right?

Options

A

Yes, since Ashwin has, as we are told, treated her cruelly.

B

Yes, since Ashwin has been her husband.

C

No, since Ashwin was understandably upset at Ashima’s behaviour.

D

No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin.

Show Answer

Correct Answer :

Option D

No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin.

Solution :

The correct answer is: No, since she is no longer married to Ashwin.


Step-by-Step Explanation:


1. Understanding the Legal Provision (Section 498A IPC):
As stated in the passage, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) punishes the husband or a relative of the husband of a woman who subjects her to cruelty. Therefore, an essential prerequisite to invoke Section 498A is the existence of a valid marital relationship (or cruelty occurring during the marriage by the husband or his relatives).


2. Analyzing the Facts of the Case:
Ashima applied for and was granted a divorce from Ashwin in November 2020. Consequently, their legal marriage stood dissolved, and Ashwin ceased to be her "husband". The alleged acts of cruelty by Ashwin took place after the divorce was granted, when Ashima was living in her own apartment.


3. Conclusion:
Since Ashima was no longer married to Ashwin at the time the alleged cruelty occurred, Ashwin cannot be charged under Section 498A of the IPC as her "husband". Hence, Ashima is not right in claiming that Ashwin committed an offence under Section 498A of the IPC.

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...