2019 (4) TMI 2115 - SC - Indian Laws

Territorial Jurisdiction - woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conduct that constitute cruelty - legal process can be initiated within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members or not. Whether the exception carved out by Section 179 would have any application to confer jurisdiction in the courts situated in the local area where the parental house of the wife is located? HELD THAT - Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced by the Criminal Law (second amendment) Act 1983. In addition to the aforesaid amendment in the Indian Penal Code the provisions of Sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 relating to inquiries by police in case of death by suicides and inquiries by magistrates into cause of such deaths were also amended. Section 198A was also inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to prosecution of offences Under Section 498A. Further by an amendment in the first Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure the offence Under Section 498A was made cognizable and non-bailable. Of considerable significance is the introduction of Section 113A in the Indian Evidence Act by the Criminal Law (second amendment) Act 1983 providing for presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman to be drawn if such suicide had been committed within a period of seven years from the date of marriage of the married woman and she had been subjected to cruelty. Cruelty which is the crux of the offence Under Section 498A Indian Penal Code is defined in Black s Law Dictionary to mean The intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical suffering on a living creature esp. a human; abusive treatment; outrage (Abuse inhuman treatment indignity) . Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of the husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma of being driven away from the matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back to the same home for fear of being ill-treated are aspects that cannot be ignored while understanding the meaning of the expression cruelty appearing in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code - The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act as the object behind its enactment would indicate is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The definition of the Domestic Violence in the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health safety life limb or well-being whether mental or physical as well as emotional abuse. The provisions contained in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code undoubtedly encompasses both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would undoubtedly be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences by itself would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would in our considered view amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated Under Section 179 Code of Criminal Procedure which would squarely be applicable to the present case as an answer to the question raised. The courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives would dependent on the factual situation also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences Under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of courts in cases of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Interpretation of "continuing offence" under Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
3. Application of Section 179 Cr.P.C. in cases of cruelty where the wife takes shelter at her parental home.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Courts in Cases of Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC

The primary question was whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home due to cruelty can initiate legal proceedings in the jurisdiction where she takes shelter with her parents or family members. The judgment considered conflicting views from previous cases:
- In Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr. (2004), Ramesh and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005), Manish Ratan and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (2007), and Amarendu Jyoti and Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (2014), it was held that if no specific act of cruelty occurred at the parental home, the initiation of proceedings under Section 498A IPC in that jurisdiction was not permissible.
- Conversely, in Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997), Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2011), and State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal and Anr. (2003), the court held that the consequences of cruelty, even if not directly occurring at the parental home, could give jurisdiction to the courts at the place where the wife took shelter.

Issue 2: Interpretation of "Continuing Offence" Under Section 178 Cr.P.C.

The judgment clarified the concept of a "continuing offence" as defined in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi (1972). A continuing offence is one that persists over time, unlike an offence committed once and for all. The court emphasized that the mental trauma and psychological distress caused by acts of cruelty at the matrimonial home continue to affect the wife even after she takes shelter at her parental home.

Issue 3: Application of Section 179 Cr.P.C.

Section 179 Cr.P.C. allows for jurisdiction where the consequences of an offence ensue. The court noted that the mental and emotional distress experienced by the wife at her parental home due to cruelty at the matrimonial home constitutes a continuing offence. This interpretation aligns with the objective of Section 498A IPC, which aims to address cruelty leading to severe consequences like mental trauma and harassment.

Conclusion:

The court held that the jurisdiction to entertain complaints under Section 498A IPC extends to the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or being driven away from the matrimonial home due to cruelty. This interpretation ensures that the legal provisions are effective and aligned with the legislative intent to combat cruelty against women.

Disposition:

All the appeals were disposed of in terms of the above findings, affirming that courts at the place where the wife takes shelter have jurisdiction to entertain complaints under Section 498A IPC.