Section 498A -Can Harassing Of Wife Also Be Booked For Relatives Living In Distant Places: Bombay HC

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against the relatives of a man in a Section 498A case, stating that relatives residing in distant places frequently interfere in the affairs of a couple and harass the wife [Rajesh Himmat Pundkar vs State of Maharashtra].

A divisional bench composed of Justices Sunil Shukre and Govind Sanap was hearing a petition filed by a husband, his parents, and his siblings to quash a FIR filed against them.

The accused noted that while the husband resided in Akola district, his parents and a married sister lived in Amravati district, and his younger brother was a native of Pune. They argued that because they did not reside with the applicant-husband, the allegations made against them by the husband's in-laws and relatives cannot be true.

In an order issued on June 8, the Court denied the argument on two counts.

"First, there is no legal presumption that a distant relative is always innocent, unless proven otherwise. A relative who is estranged from the husband and wife has often been observed interfering in their marital affairs in such a manner and to such an extent as to constitute actual harassment "the judges decided.

In addition, the court stated that the investigation into the case was ongoing, and that additional evidence could be uncovered through further investigation.

"Then, up to this point, we have determined that the allegations made by the complainant's wife against all of the applicants are specific in nature, and if their veracity is to be tested, it can only be done at trial and not at this stage. Since the remaining applicants do not reside with the husband and wife, it cannot be said that the allegations made against the in-laws do not reveal an offence "The bench continued.

The couple wed in 2007 and had three children at the time. In 2017, however, the wife discovered that her husband was having an extramarital affair. When she confronted him, he attacked her.

Concerning the in-laws, the wife alleged in her FIR that when she informed her husband's parents and siblings about his extramarital affair, they began abusing her instead of controlling his behaviour. Additionally, the in-laws demanded 50,000 in dowry.

Noting the allegations in the FIR, the bench emphasised that each of the accused in the case had been assigned specific responsibilities. It was determined that the in-laws had not made any vague or general accusations against them, thereby establishing a prima facie case against them.

The court therefore refused to dismiss the FIR.

Attorney AB Moon represented the husband and his relatives, while additional public prosecutor I J Damle and attorney Kirti Satpute represented the state and the wife, respectively.

D.D:08-06-2022

Rajesh Himmat Pundkar v/s State of Maharashtra