Delhi High Court has made important comments in cases related to marital disputes and domestic disputes. The court has said that the entire family of the husband cannot be dragged into criminal proceedings on the basis of bad marital relations and suffering arising out of the marriage. For this, it is necessary to have concrete allegations against the concerned persons and their different roles in the crime should be clear. In its judgment delivered on Wednesday, a bench of Justice Madhu Jain expressed concern over the growing trend of implicating husband's relatives in allegations of cruelty during matrimonial disputes. The court clarified that merely because there is tension in the marital relationship or dispute between the husband and wife, all the members of the husband's family cannot be made accused in a criminal case.
Criminal cases also affect reputation and livelihood.
Justice Jain said that the consequences of criminal cases are not limited to the court only, but they also affect the reputation, livelihood and family life of the person concerned. In such a situation, before involving a person in criminal proceedings, the allegations leveled against him should be seriously investigated. The bench also made it clear that the objective of the law should be to provide effective protection to women facing cruelty. At the same time, it is also important to ensure that the husband's relatives are not criminally prosecuted merely on the basis of their family ties. According to the court, the alleged role of each person in the matrimonial dispute must be assessed independently. It is not appropriate to accuse the entire family merely on the basis of bad relations between husband and wife or marital discord.
Concern expressed over the practice of implicating relatives
In his judgment, Justice Jain said that the court wishes to express concern over the prevailing trend of implicating the husband's relatives by making blanket allegations of cruelty in matrimonial disputes. The bench said that the pain arising from a troubled marriage can be understood, but it cannot be a justification for dragging the entire family into criminal proceedings. Especially when the persons concerned have no apparent role in the alleged crime.
Solid basis necessary against husbands also
The court said that the purpose of the law is to provide effective protection to women facing cruelty. But it should also be ensured that a person is not prosecuted merely because he is a relative of the husband or wife. According to the bench, the role of each accused in criminal cases and the charges leveled against him should be assessed separately.
Reputation, livelihood and family life are affected
Justice Jain said that the consequences of criminal cases are not limited to the confines of the court. They also affect a person's reputation, livelihood and family life. Therefore, it is necessary to have solid allegations and sufficient grounds for criminal action. The court said that there should be effective protection in law to protect women from cruelty. Along with this, it should also be ensured that the husband's relatives are not dragged into litigation merely on the basis of family relations and husbands are also not punished without any solid reason.
Relief to husband and in-laws in Anisiya Batra case
This case is related to the suicide of late flight attendant Anisia Batra in the year 2018. Charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide were filed against her husband Mayank Singhvi. At the same time, there were allegations against his parents related to cruelty and dowry death. The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's order which acquitted Mayank Singhvi of the charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide and his parents of the charges of cruelty and dowry death.
Anisiya died on 13 July 2018
Anisia Batra, who worked with a German airline, died allegedly by suicide at her residence in South Delhi's Panchsheel Park on July 13, 2018. After his death, on the complaint of mother Nilum Batra, the police had registered an FIR under sections 304B (dowry death), 498A (cruelty), 306 (abetment of suicide) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Anisiya's mother had alleged that Mayank Singhvi used to repeatedly demand money from her daughter. He held Mayank and his parents responsible for his daughter's death.
The trial court had given this order in 2019
In the year 2019, the trial court had acquitted Mayank Singhvi on the charges of dowry death. At the same time, her parents were given relief from the charges of dowry death and cruelty. However, the court had directed to frame charges of cruelty and abetment to suicide against Mayank. This order was later challenged by Mayank Singhvi, Anisiya's mother and Delhi Police.
High Court also canceled the order to frame charges
After hearing the case, Delhi High Court also canceled the trial court's order framing charges of cruelty and abetment to suicide against Mayank. The court said that the essential ingredients of these crimes were not present in the material produced by the prosecution. In its decision, the High Court made important legal comments regarding the charge of abetment to suicide. The court said that if a woman before committing suicide leaves a message or suicide note holding someone else responsible for her death, the crime of abetment of suicide is not proved against the person concerned on the basis of this allegation alone.
It's never a shame to return home.
Justice Jain said that when a daughter reports facing violence or continuous abuse in her marriage, it is the responsibility of her parents to support her in time. The court stressed that the daughter's complaints should not be dismissed by saying that she should make some adjustments in marital life. Parents should not compromise their daughter's safety due to the fear of what society will say or how people will criticize.
Daughter's safety is more important than saving marriage
The court said in its decision that saving the marriage cannot be more important than the safety and honor of the daughter. If a woman complains of violence or persistent abuse in her marital life, she should be provided immediate support. Justice Jain also said that one should not wait for a major and irreparable tragedy to occur before helping. The family should understand the daughter's problem in time and stand with her.
Name in suicide note does not in itself prove a crime.
In the Anisia Batra case, the court also made important legal observations on the charge of abetment of suicide. The bench said that the deceased holding any person responsible for his death can be an important part of evidence, but on its basis alone it cannot be decided that the named person has committed the offense under Section 306 of the IPC. For this it is necessary to evaluate the essential legal elements of the crime and the available evidence.
Husband gets relief in Anisiya Batra case
It is noteworthy that Anisia Batra, who was a flight attendant in a German airline, died by alleged suicide on July 13, 2018 in Panchsheel Park, South Delhi. A case was registered against her husband Mayank Singhvi and his family on her mother's complaint. The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's order acquitting Mayank Singhvi of charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide and also acquitting his parents of related charges.
Follow the LALLURAM.COM MP channel on WhatsApp