Taking wife’s jewellery alone doesn’t amount to cruelty: HC

Justice Krishna, in her verdict, said that the woman had made broad claims regarding the man threatening her and her daughters, but the same were not corroborated, supported by any evidence and reflected an afterthought to intensify her case.

The Delhi High Court on Monday held that a man cannot be booked for cruelty towards his wife solely on the allegation that he took away her jewellery.

The Delhi police had supported the man’s case, saying that the woman had concealed her divorce in the FIR.

A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the verdict while dealing with a petition filed by a 66-year-old man seeking quashing of FIR registered against him by his wife under various sections of Indian Penal Code, including section 498A (husband or relative of a husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 406 (criminal breach of trust).

In the present case, the man, a practising advocate, met the woman and assisted her in a divorce. However, following her divorce, the two married in August 2007. The woman later complained about the man, alleging that he had withdrawn money from their joint bank account without her knowledge and had taken jewellery worth ₹40 lakh that she had kept in their home locker. She further stated that the man had admitted that he had mortgaged the same for purchasing a house and also threatened her to release her intimate videos.

In his petition before the high court, the man contended that his wife had deceived him by hiding the fact that she obtained a divorce from her first husband in 2010, after their own marriage. He argued that since the marriage between them was invalid, she could not have lodged an FIR against him under Section 498A of the IPC, as he was not legally her husband.

The Delhi police had supported the man’s case, saying that the woman had concealed her divorce in the FIR.

The woman urged the court to dismiss the petition, considering his conduct towards her.

Ruling in man’s favour and quashing the case, the court relied on Supreme Court’s ruling in Arvind Singh’s case in which the court while clarifying the legislative intent behind section 498A, said that “cruelty” refers to the conduct by the husband or his relatives that causes pain or distress to the wife and mere allegation of taking away jewellery does not fall within this definition of cruelty.

“Even if for the sake of arguments, it is accepted that the Petitioner had taken away jewellery worth Rs.40 lakhs of the Petitioner, then too it cannot be said to be an act of cruelty or harassment as provided under Section 498A IPC. For this reference may be made to the case of Arvind Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 6 SCC 407 wherein the term “cruelty” was considered and it was observed that the Legislative intent in Section 498A IPC is clear to indicate that in the event of there being a state of conduct by the husband or his relatives towards the wife, which is attributed to be painful or distressing, the same would fall within the meaning of ‘cruelty’. This allegation of taking away jewellery does not come within the scope of Section 498A IPC,” the court maintained.

Justice Krishna, in her verdict, said that the woman had made broad claims regarding the man threatening her and her daughters, but the same were not corroborated, supported by any evidence and reflected an afterthought to intensify her case.

In its ruling, the court however, ruled that a man can be charged with cruelty towards his wife even if the marriage is later declared invalid. “Therefore, the Petitioner cannot seek any avoidance from the offence under Section 498A IPC, on this ground. Considering the purposive interpretation of the definition of the Husband to cover persons who enter into marital relationships, even if their marriage is subsequently declared technically invalid, Section 498A IPC would still be applicable,” the court maintained.