Supreme Court: Interpreting the word ‘cruelty’ occurring in S. 498A IPC, the Division Bench comprising of Hon’ble K.S. Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ. held that extra-marital relationship amounts to mental harassment or mental cruelty and comes within the meaning of ‘cruelty’ if it is of such nature as is likely to drive the spouse to commit suicide. The Court, however held that the mere fact that the husband has developed some intimacy with another, during the subsistence of marriage and failed to discharge his marital obligations, as such, would not amount to "cruelty".. The Court relying upon the case of Gananath Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, (2002) 2 SCC 619, said that for the purpose of this section cruelty need not to be physical always, even mental torture or abnormal behaviour may amount to cruelty or harassment and which act of the husband qualifies for ‘cruelty’ would vary from individual to individual depending upon the social and economic status to which such person belongs. In the present case, the husband had a one-sided love affair with a woman during the subsistence of his marriage with the deceased and hence, it was held that the husband had not intentionally inflicted any emotional stress on the deceased so as to drive her to commit suicide. [Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal v. State of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No. 811 of 2004, decided on September 09, 2013] Ref: SCC- Supreme Court Cases
Posted on: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 12:20:30 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015