Owner Can Avoid Confiscation Under NDPS by Proving Lack of Knowledge or Connivance in Illicit Use of Vehicle: Supreme Court Court is Expert of Experts: High Court Upholds Right to Rebuttal Evidence in Will Dispute Exceptional Circumstances Warrant Use of Inherent Powers to Reduce Sentences in Non-Compoundable Offenses: Supreme Court Execution of Eviction Decree Limited to Suit Premises; Additional Claims Not Permissible: Bombay High Court Only Apprentices Under the 1961 Act Are Excluded from Gratuity – Calcutta High Court Demand for Penalty and Interest Without Following Natural Justice Violates Section 11A of the Central Excise Act: P&H High Court Rajasthan High Court Acquits Bank Manager, Citing "Processing Fee, Not Bribe" in Corruption Case Compensatory Nature of Section 138 NI Act Permits Compounding Even at Revisional Stage: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 99 Crore: Faults Adjudicating Authority for Contradictory Findings Section 138 NI Act | Compounding Permitted Even at Revisional Stage with Reduced Fee in Special Circumstances: HP High Court No Renewal, Only Re-Tendering’ – Upholds Railway Board’s MPS License Policy: Delhi High Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Second FIR Against Former Minister in Corruption Case Nature of Suit Must Be Determined on Evidence, Not Technical Grounds: Delhi High Court on Rejection of Plaint Economic Offences Must Be Scrutinized to Protect Public Interest:  Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash FIR Against Cloud Investment Scheme Company Golden Hour Care Is a Matter of Right, Not Privilege: Supreme Court on Road Accident Victim Treatment Limitation Law | When Once the Time Has Begun to Run, Nothing Stops It: Supreme Court Section 14 of Limitation Act Shields Bona Fide Claimants: SC Validates Arbitration Amid Procedural Delay Time Lost Cannot Be Restored, But Justice Can: Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Convict Declared Juvenile Bailable Warrants in Domestic Violence Cases Only in Exceptional Circumstances - Domestic Violence Act Cases Are Primarily Remedial, Not Punitive: Supreme Court

Bombay High Court Upholds FIR in Marital Cruelty Case Post-Divorce: "A Case is Made Out to Proceed Against the Applicants Under Section 498-A of IPC"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Bombay High Court's Aurangabad Bench, comprising Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme, rejected a plea to quash an FIR and subsequent legal proceedings in a case involving allegations of marital cruelty and deceit. The case, Meer Akbar Ali S/o. Meer Inayat Ali and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, highlights the complexities surrounding domestic violence laws post-divorce.

The FIR, filed under Sections 269, 498-A, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), charged the husband (applicant no. 1) and his father (applicant no. 2) with deceit regarding a contagious disease and harassment for dowry. The wife (respondent no. 2) alleged that she was deceived and subjected to harassment, prompting the court to delve into the specifics of the case.

Justice Shailesh P. Brahme observed, "We find that there are allegations of physical and mental harassment caused to the informant by the applicants after she started residing with the applicants." The court emphasized the validity of the allegations based on the period when the marriage was still subsisting.

The applicants argued for the inapplicability of Section 498-A IPC, citing the dissolution of marriage via 'Khula-Nama' on 19.02.2023. However, the court referred to several precedents, including Mohammad Miyan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, to understand the application of domestic cruelty laws post-divorce. The judgment stated, "A victim of harassment contemplated by Section 498-A is a 'woman'... to enable even a divorcee to maintain proceedings in respect of harassment suffered by her when the marriage was subsisting."

This ruling has significant implications for the interpretation of domestic violence laws, especially in the context of dissolved marriages. The Bombay High Court's decision to reject the application for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings reaffirms the legal stance on marital cruelty extending beyond the dissolution of marriage. "We have no hesitation to hold that this is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C," concluded the bench, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.

Date of Decision: 21-03-2024

Meer Akbar Ali S/o. Meer Inayat Ali and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others

Similar News