Lagatar24 Desk
New Delhi, Jan 14: The Supreme Court has ruled that taking custody of a daughter-in-law’s jewelry for safety reasons does not constitute cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Failure to control an adult brother living independently or giving advice to adjust to sister-in-law to avoid reprisal, according to a bench of Justices Indira Banerjee and J K Maheshwari, cannot be considered cruelty to the bride under Section 498A of the IPC.
Section 498A refers to a woman’s husband or a relative of her husband torturing her. A woman filed a lawsuit against her husband and in-laws, alleging that they were unkind to her.
The Supreme Court made the remarks while hearing an appeal against an order by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing a man’s request to return to the United States, where he is employed.
The man’s request to leave the country was denied by the high court because he was charged alongside his elder brother and parents under the Indian Penal Code’s Sections 323 (voluntary causing hurt), 34 (common intention), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) 498A and 506 (criminal intimidation).
“Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.
“Failure to control an adult brother, living independently, or giving advice to the complainant to adjust to avoid vindictive retaliation cannot constitute cruelty on the part of the Appellant within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC,” the top court bench said in a recent order.
It said the complainant (daughter-in-law) has not given any particulars of the jewellery that had allegedly been taken by her mother-in-law and brother-in- law.
There is not a whisper of whether any jewellery is lying with the petitioner, it said.
“There is only a general omnibus allegation that all the accused ruined the life of the complainant by misrepresentation, concealment, etc… “The Appellant is not liable for the acts of cruelty, or any other wrongful and/or criminal acts on the part of his parents or brother,” the top court said.
The top court stated that, given the nature of the allegations, it is unclear how or why the petitioner was imprisoned in India. “ The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kurukshetra, in our opinion, erred in directing the appellant not to leave the country without first obtaining permission from the Court.”
It stated that the accusations in the petitioner’s case do not appear to expose any wrongdoing under Section 498A of the IPC, which covers cruelty.
