Can Father's Refusal to get the Child Medically Treated amount to Cruelty in Marriage? HC answers,

 

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that refusal to get the child medically treated and neglecting his health doesn't amount to Cruelty under Section 498-A or criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC.

The single-judge bench of Justice R. Raghunandan Rao in this view quashed a criminal case filed by a woman against her husband and in-laws alleging inter-alia that no assistance was given for the treatment of her ailing son by her husband.

Brief Facts of the Case

The present petition was filed by the husband and in-laws of the woman to quash the case filed under Sections 498-A, 509, 506, 354 r/w 34 of IPC on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation and the case is not made out.

The de-facto complainant and the 1st petitioner were married in 2013. The de facto complainant has alleged that her husband-1st petitioner, her father-in-law-2nd petitioner, her mother-in-law-3rd petitioner, and the sister of her husband, who is the 4th petitioner, had harassed her and mistreated her as if she was a maidservant in the house of her inlaws. The de facto complainant alleged that her husband had an inferiority complex as she was more educated than him and that harassment had been carried out to extract money from her parents. After the birth of her son, she was sent away to her matrimonial home and neither her husband nor any of her in-laws bothered to look after her or her son. A specific allegation is made that the son of the de facto complainant had some problems in his testicles and no assistance was given to her for the treatment of her son. The complaint states that the said problem had to be solved by surgery which was done with the help of her parents.

 

The de facto complainant also further alleged that the 1st petitioner, to create an image of a good husband had filed an application before the Additional Senior Civil Judge for restitution of conjugal rights but didn't pursue the matter, allowing the petition to be dismissed for default. The petitioners had also rejected the attempts of elders to resolve these issues and in such circumstances, the complaint is said to have been filed.

Contrary, Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations in the complaint are false and have been made only for the purpose of arm-twisting the petitioners into accepting her demands. He would further submit that the complaint could not have been entertained as it has been filed beyond the period of limitation set out under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the cognizance of the case itself is irregular and not in accordance with the requirements of law.

He pointed out that offences under Section 354 of I.P.C were dropped initially and an additional provision namely, Section 509 of I.P.C was included in the charge sheet later on. However, the note put up before the trial Court, by its office, stated that the charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 354 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and a proforma stamped order of cognizance recorded that the case was being taken on file under Section 498-A, 354 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The said order of cognizance apart from being bereft of any reasons disclosing satisfaction of the Magistrate is also defective on account of a clear non-application of mind by the Magistrate, he argued.

 

It was his submission that once Section 354 of I.P.C is excluded from the charge sheet, all the other offences do not attract a punishment of more than three years and the limitation for filing a complaint under these provisions would be three years from the date of offence. In this case, all the allegations are related to offences prior to November, 2015 while the complaint was filed on 03.05.2019 which is clearly beyond the period of three years.

The de facto complainant has filed a counter affidavit denying all these allegations. Her Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the offences of Sections 498-A, 354, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C are continuing offences and as such, the complaint is within limitation.

High Court's Observation

 

The Court at the outset agreed with the submission of the petitioner concerning the charges being dropped and added and after analyzing also observed that here is no reason recorded, by the Magistrate, as to why cognizance was being taken under Section 354 of I.P.C when the investigating officer had dropped the said provision and why cognizance was not taken under Section 509 of I.P.C when the investigating officer had included the said provision in the charge sheet.

It also observed that Magistrate has not recorded even a brief note setting out his satisfaction for taking cognizance and thus opined that there is a clear non-application of mind.

"None of the allegations in the complaint or the charge sheet make out any case of the de facto complainant being assaulted or criminal force being used against the de facto complainant. There are also no allegations that such criminal force has been used or an assault had been made against the de facto complainant with the intention of outraging the modesty of the de facto complainant. The investigating officer had rightly dropped the said provision and cognizance of section 354 of I.P.C by the Magistrate, is clearly not in accordance with law and would have to be quashed on that short ground."

"A perusal of the allegations in the complaint filed by the de facto complainant and the allegations in the charge sheet would show that allegations relate to incidents of harassment up to the time she went back to the house of her parents. The gap between the date on which the de facto complainant went back to the house of her parents and the date on which she filed her complaint is more than three years. This would result in the complaint under Sections 498-A, 509 or 506 of I.P.C being barred by limitation."

On de facto complainant's stand, there were further incidents of harassment which make the offences continue offences and in any event, the complaints would not be an outside limitation as the latest incident of harassment was in the year 2018 when nobody come forward to consider the wellbeing of the child of the de facto complainant who had undergone a surgery.

CASE TITLE: GMR v. Smt. GS

 

CASE DETAILS: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1958 of 2021

CORAM: Justice R. Raghunandan Rao

 Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

 Social media is you.

 (With input from news agency language)

  If you like this story, share it with a friend!   
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure .