The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently delivered a significant ruling, holding that withholding a child from their mother constitutes mental cruelty. The court dismissed a plea filed by in-laws seeking to quash an FIR alleging dowry harassment and cruelty.
The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit W. Joshi, highlights the psychological trauma caused to a mother when separated from her young child, terming it a continuing act of cruelty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background of the Case
The informant, a woman married in 2019, accused her in-laws of persistently demanding ₹10,00,000 as dowry to purchase a car. When she failed to meet their demands, she alleged that they subjected her to physical and mental harassment. In May 2022, she was forcibly expelled from her matrimonial home, leaving her daughter behind, who was about two years old at the time.
Despite securing an order granting her custody of the child under the Guardians and Wards Act, the informant claimed that her husband and in-laws had not complied with the directive, continuing to deny her access to her child. This defiance became a central point in the court’s decision.
Legal Issues
The petitioners—comprising the mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister-in-law of the informant—approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), seeking to quash the FIR filed against them. They argued that the allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty lacked substantial evidence and were vague. They also highlighted that one of the petitioners was a person with a disability, contending that they could not have participated in the alleged acts.
The informant, however, contended that the petitioners not only harassed her over dowry demands but also actively aided her husband in withholding custody of her daughter. The court had earlier questioned the petitioners about the whereabouts of the informant’s husband, which they claimed to be unaware of. The court expressed skepticism about their response, terming it a “matter of strategy” to flout judicial orders.
Key Observations of the Court
The court, after reviewing the facts and submissions, made several pointed observations:
1. Defiance of Custody Orders: The Bench emphasized that the refusal to comply with the custody order granting the mother access to her child amounted to mental harassment. The court noted, “Keeping a young child of four years old away from her mother in defiance of court orders amounts to mental cruelty within the meaning of Explanation (a) to Section 498-A of IPC.”
2. Role of the In-Laws: The judges found it hard to accept that the in-laws were unaware of the husband’s whereabouts or his continued defiance of custody orders. They observed that the in-laws’ actions effectively prolonged the mental distress of the mother.
3. Scope of Section 482, CrPC: The Bench reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 are discretionary and cannot be invoked by parties defying court orders. Citing a precedent, the court stated, “Jurisdiction under Section 482 is a matter of discretion, and conduct contrary to judicial directives disentitles a party from invoking such powers.”
Court’s Decision
The court dismissed the petition, allowing the FIR and criminal proceedings to continue. While acknowledging the petitioners’ plea regarding the disability of one of the accused, the judges advised that any defense related to mental health conditions could be pursued during the trial under the relevant provisions of the CrPC.
The court concluded, “The continued mental harassment of the informant, arising from being separated from her child, is a continuing wrong and cannot be brushed aside at this stage.”
