CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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

Latest Legal News