If a woman does not wish to do household work after marriage, she should let her wish be known before tying the knot so the couple can rethink the marriage itself, the Aurangabad Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has observed.
The court made the controversial observation while quashing an FIR against a man, his mother and his elder sister after his wife alleged that she was treated like a “maid servant” after a month of the wedding.
“If a married lady is asked to do household work definitely for the purpose of the family, it cannot be said that it is like a maid servant (sic). If she had no wish to do her household activities, then she ought to have said it either prior to the marriage so that the bride-groom could rethink about the marriage itself or if it is after marriage, then such problem ought to have been sorted out earlier. Her FIR is also silent on the point as to whether there was maid servant at her matrimonial home for doing the work of washing utensils, washing clothes, sweeping etc, which is generally given to the maid servant,” court said.
The husband, his mother and his elder sister were booked under Sections 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The wife had also alleged that the accused demanded Rs 4 lakh from her to purchase a four-wheeler. When she responded that her father did not have the money, she alleged that she was mentally and physically harassed. It was also alleged that when she was pressured to give birth to a son and was allegedly slapped and kicked by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law.
The lawyer for the three accused argued that the woman had filed a similar complaint during her first marriage which eventually resulted in acquittal. He also argued that the man had purchased a four-wheeler through a bank loan and, therefore, “there was no question” of demanding any money.
The Additional Public Prosecutor and the advocate for the complainant strongly objected to the application and submitted that since the investigation has been done and evidence has been brought to light, this is not a case where the FIR as well as entire proceedings should be quashed and set aside.
The High Court, while allowing the application, stated: “According to her own FIR, which is then supported by in stereotype way by her parents and other relatives that she was treated properly for about a month, it is then vaguely stated that she was treated like a maid servant. She has not given details of the same.”
The court quashed and set aside the FIR against the husband, his mother and elder sister on the grounds that all allegations made by the wife were vague and noted that: “It is in fact already conferred under Section 498-A of IPC and unless those other offenses are shown which would amount to “cruelty”, offense under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be made out and, therefore, it would be a futile exercise to ask the applicants to face the trial.”
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment