Cruelty

Cruelty
 Section 498A IPC

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 wilful 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.
 Under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhitha

 Section 85. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—
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.
 Section 86. Cruelty Defined
(a) any wilful 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.
 Dowry death
Section 304B IPC/ Section 80 BNS Dowry death.— Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it
is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry
death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
 Presumptions under IEA

Section 113A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. ––When the question is whether
the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and
it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and
that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the court may presume, having
regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by
such relative of her husband.
Section 113B. Presumption as to dowry death. ––-When the question is whether a person has committed the
dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such
person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the court shall presume
that such person had caused the dowry death.
 Procedure under CrPC

Section 198A- No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a police report of facts which constitute such offence or upon a
complaint made by the person aggrieved by the offence or by her father, mother, brother, sister or by her
father’s or mother’s brother or sister or, with the leave of the Court, by any other person related to her by
blood, marriage or adoption.
 Cruelty as a ground for divorce

Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act – Treating the petitioner with cruelty after solemnisation of marriage is a
ground for divorce
Section 27 of Special Marriage Act - Treating the petitioner with cruelty after solemnisation of marriage is a
ground for divorce
 Cruelty
 Factors that amount to cruelty is always a question of fact.
 Cruelty is one of the essentials required to constitute offence under 498A of IPC. it should be shown
that the actual amount of cruelty which the women was subject to is enough to build the offence
under this section.
In the Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh divorce case, the court ruled on March 26, 2007: “If a husband submits
himself for an operation of sterilization without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of
his wife and similarly if the wife undergoes vasectomy (read tubectomy) or abortion without medical reason
or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.”
The court also ruled that a refusal to have sex with one’s spouse and a unilateral decision to not have a child
would also amount to mental cruelty. Considering the circumstances of the case, the court granted a divorce.
John Idiculla & Another v/s State of Kerala & Another
It was contended that an offence under section 498A I.P.C. will lie only against the husband and/or the
relative of the husband' of a woman. But, the second petitioner who is not a legally-wedded wife as per the
allegations in the complaint itself cannot be treated as 'the relative of the husband' and hence she cannot be
held liable for offence under section 498A I.P.C.
Borrowing meaning of the expression, "relative" from other enactments like Mental Health Act etc., and also
the dictionary, it was strenuously argued that a person can be said to be a 'relative' of another only if such
person is related to the other "by blood, marriage or adoption”.
concept of "marriage" is liberally construed for the purpose of section 498A I.P.C. (Reema Aggarwal v.
Anupam and Ors) It was held in the said decision that a liberal interpretation is to be given to the expression
"marriage", bearing in mind the object of section 498A of I.P.C. While deciding the question as to who could
be covered by the expression "husband coming under section 498A I.P.C., it was held that the concept of
marriage to constitute the relationship of "husband" and "wife may require a liberal and different approach
when the question of curbing a social evil arises. It was a case in which it was contended that the marriage
between the husband/accused and wife complainant was not legal in view of an existing earlier marriage of
the husband and hence the accused/husband cannot be held liable under section 498 A I.P.C. as the husband
of the complainant.
Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam and Ors
The evil sought to be curbed are distinct and separate from the persons committing the offending acts and
there could be no impediment in law to liberally construe the words or expressions relating to the persons
committing the offence so as to rope in not only those validly married but also anyone who has undergone
some or other form of marriage and thereby assumed for himself the position of husband to live, cohabitate
and exercise authority as such husband over another woman. The concept of marriage to constitute the
relationship of 'husband' and 'wife' may require strict interpretation where claims for civil rights, right to
property etc. may follow or flow and a liberal approach and different perception cannot be an anatheme
when the question of curbing a social evil is concerned.
 Vasant Bhagwar Patil v Maharashtra
 Anjanappa v Karnataka
 Krishnakumar@Setu V. NCT Delhi
In all these cases it was held that husband need not be having a similar status of legally married person.
Proof of a valid wed-lock not essential for invoking sec. 498A and 304B
State of Maharashtra v Dyaneshwar Narayan
The section is about giving protection to women against all kinfs of torture happening in a married
relationship. Not confined to dowry demand or other financial claims.

Cruelty

Uploaded by

Cruelty

Uploaded by

Cruelty

 Section 498A IPC

 Under Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhitha

 Presumptions under IEA

 Procedure under CrPC

 Cruelty as a ground for divorce

You might also like