Bombay HC junks lawyer's case against husband, in-laws, says case was filed with ulterior motive

Bombay High Court/ File Photo

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday said that the wife's discontent with her mother-in-law and certain misconduct by her husband does not constitute an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code which pertains to subjecting women to cruelty for dowry. The court was hearing a case filed by a woman against her husband and his family over alleged harassment concerning dowry. Both the woman and the accused are lawyers.

The HC, citing Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam & Ors Supreme Court judgement, stated that the prosecution must present specific evidence against the accused and his kin and added that vague allegations cannot be the basis for them.

After Chandrayan 3, ISRO now prepping to launch Aditya L1 mission to the sun in August

1 year agoPHOTO GALLERY

The preliminary information received stated that the woman got married to the accused in Mumbai on April 14, 2019, but they separated within six months of the wedding and the complainant cited ill-treatment as the cause of separation.

Bombay HC said that they looked into attributions wherein the wife is not happy with her mother-in-law's conduct; the wom

"We have specifically looked into the attributions wherein the wife appears to be not happy with the conduct of the mother-in-law while the complainant has brought certain misconduct of the husband to her notice. Such conduct of the mother-in-law by itself will not lead to inferring an offence under section 498A," the court said.

The court further said, "Notably, the court found that the complaint was not made in good faith and was filed with an ulterior motive."

Considering the social responsibility of the woman and her husband, who are both lawyers, the HC stated that preserving family ties is important and cautioned against blood relations based on generalised complaints. The court dismissed the prosecution's case against the accused family members.

Advocate Maaz Ansari, representing the husband's family, submitted that the contents of the FIR were false, contradictory, and lacked specific details, suggesting a concerted effort to implicate the entire family. The court also noted that the complainant had already expressed reluctance to pursue mediation or counselling, indicating a predetermined mindset.

The order read, "As such, from the very contents of the FIR and other material on record not only stereotype statements of the witnesses could be noticed but also there appears to be enough space to infer that the wife with the aid of sister, who is also a lawyer has carefully drafted the FIR so as to implicate all the family members and her husband."