Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the matter of Amarjit Kaur, Justice Jaishree Thakur while quashed the application observed that ‘disgruntled wives’ using IPC Section 498A as weapon to harass husband rather than shield.
In the matter Justice Jaishree Thakur expressed concern against the misuse of provisions of IPC Section 498A by unsatisfied wives.
“It has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498-A IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives.”
The bench further expressed concern that:
“The simplest way to harass is to get the relatives of the husband roped in under this provision, no matter they are bed ridden grand parents of the husband or the relatives living abroad for decades.”
The bench quashed the criminal case proceedings at the trial court and noted that:
“The complainant has failed to make out a prima facie case against the petitioners regarding allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant or demanding dowry from her. The complaint does not disclose specific allegation against the petitioners except casual reference of their names that husband of the complainant gave her beatings at the instance of petitioners“
In the matter that court noted that, complainant wife mentioned in her complainant that she was ill-treated by her husband and her in-laws soon after the marriage. The husband and his family was demanding Maruti 800. She also alleged that in year 1993, she gave birth to a girl child and the entire expenditure was made by parents of the complainant.
Then she further alleged that in-laws were started demanding 5 lakh rupees after the birth, and she also accused the family members who were residing abroad and sis-in-law was already residing at her matrimonial house. She also alleged that physical assault by these distant relatives.
So on this court stated that, assaulting physically is not possible from remote locations and said as:
“the sister-in-law of the complainant…has been residing in her matrimonial home since then and therefore, there is not even a remotest possibility that husband of the complainant was used to give beatings to her at the instance of petitioner No.1.”
The bench also observed the case a “sheer abuse of process of law” and stated as:
“In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the case in hand is a sheer abuse of process of law and therefore, is a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C… qua petitioners are quashed.”