Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court observed that one trivial instance, unless serious with no clear evidence of involvement in the complainant's life, is not sufficient to implicate a person under the provisions of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

• The aforesaid observation was made in the case of Mahalakshmi v. The State of Karnataka.

What was the Background of Mahalakshmi v. The State of Karnataka Case?

• In this case, the appellant Mahalakshmi is the sister of accused Sarvan Kumar who is the former husband of respondent Rekha Bhaskaran.
• The accused and the respondent got married on 29^th June 2015.
• The respondent filed a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
• After investigation, a charge sheet was filed.
• The appellant filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court to quash the charge sheet which was later dismissed by the Court.
• Thereafter, the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court.
• Allowing the appeal, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N Bhatti observed that the assertions made therein are very vague and general. One instance unless portentous, in the absence of any material evidence of interference and involvement in the marital life of the complainant, may not be sufficient to implicate the person as having committed cruelty under section 498A of the IPC.
• The Court further states that the appellant was not residing at the marital home, and was not even living in India, and in the absence of specific details that constitute cruelty, we would accept the present appeal.

What is Section 498A of the IPC?

• About:
  • Introduced in the year 1983, Section 498A deals with the situations when the husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. It states that -

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, cruelty means-

(a) 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
(b) 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 Section 498A of IPC is cognizable and non- bailable offence.
  • The complaint under Section 498A 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.
  • For commission of an offence under Section 498A, following necessary ingredients 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.
• Related 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 Onkar Nath Mishra v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2008), the Supreme Court held that Section 498-A IPC was introduced with the object to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives. Nevertheless, the provision should not be used as a device to achieve oblique motives.