Motivated: Bombay High Court scraps domestic violence charges against mother, son

The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed a case filed by a man against his sister's husband and mother-in-law, stating that the case filed against the mother-son duo was motivated by a desire for retribution rather than a legitimate grievance.

The bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Pravin S Patil was hearing a plea filed by Pune residents, a 68-year-old woman and her son seeking dismissal of the FIR registered at Nagpur by their daughter-in-law’s brother.

Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Yogesh Vaidya pointed out that the FIR was registered on February 11, 2021 by the man on behalf of his sister. The FIR alleged that everything was perfect for a while after his sister's marriage in June 2016. However, soon, the in-laws started demanding gold items and all those demands were met from time to time by the family members of the woman.

According to the FIR registered on July 12, 2019, the woman came to live with her brother due to a health issue and was diagnosed with cancer around July 2019 and the costs of her treatment were borne by the brother. The FIR claimed that after the woman recovered from cancer, she went to her husband's house in January 2020, but she was allegedly asked by her husband and his mother to get Rs 8 lakhs, else she would not be allowed inside the house.

However, Vaidya argued that the FIR was lodged by the woman’s brother with an ulterior motive to recover the amount of expenditure which he had incurred on his sister during her treatment of cancer at a hospital.

Vaidya stated that the woman passed away on February 12, 2021, just a day after the FIR was registered.

The woman's brother defended the FIR by submitting that the applicants did not attend to her during her illness and made a demand for the amount of Rs 8 lakhs when she went to the applicants for cohabitation. He sought for their plea to be rejected.

The bench, however, observed the complainant's allegation was not entirely true as the woman's brother had stated in a legal document that his sister's husband had spent Rs 1,75,000 and had also shown his willingness to make available the medical policy drawn in his family name. Moreover, the husband had been on visiting term with his wife during her period of illness.

The bench also observed that the allegations against the husband and his mother did not "come out of the mouth" of the woman. Rather, it was the brother who made the complaint in her lifetime. The investigating officer also didn't record the statement of the wife during her lifetime to substantiate the allegations against the applicants.

The bench further added, "the allegations made against applicants do not satisfy the pre-requisites of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. According to us, allegations are vague and omnibus in nature," wherein accusations must be specific with time, date, place and nature of harassment.

Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman.

- Ends