Court acquits woman's husband, brother-in-law in cruelty case

NEw new new delhi, A Delhi margaret court has go down apart a magisterial court order sentencing a woman's husband and brother-in-law to one-year imprisonment for subjecting her to cruelty, calling it a "classic case" of misuse of legal provisions meant for the protection of women. Additional sessions judge Shivali Bansal was hearing an appeal against the 2023 order convicting the woman's husband Mukhtiar Singh and his brother Satender Partap Singh under Section 498A of IPC and sentencing them to one year imprisonment aside from a ₹50,000 fine. The August 29 order said, "This case is a classic example of misuse of the provision of Section 498 A of the IPC." It court wondered when the husband was not a fit person to live with, and if he had made the woman’s life miserable, why were there continuous reconciliation attempts made by the wife and her family members? In Indian society, the court said, it was generally held that to save marriages, women suffered atrocities from husbands and in-laws, but this was not true for all cases and could not be generalised, especially where the wife was independent and educated. "The conduct of respondent 2 is questionable at one particular instance, where she said that appellant 1 had held the child on the balcony and threatened that he would drop the child," the court said. It said there was a possibility that the wife tolerated the husband’s cruel behaviour, but no mother would risk her child’s safety for the sake of marriage. The court said the alleged "incident was so grave that any female ought to have registered a complaint", considering the life-risk to a six-year-old child. The court said the woman’s conduct was not in conformity with the allegations made, and that it appeared that she made complaints in May 2007 and August 2008 against her husband "to take revenge and vengeance" after realising that the relationship had reached beyond repair. Though allegations of cruelty were supported by the woman's father, mother and brother, the court said it had to scrutinise the evidence of such related or interested witnesses carefully. The court noted the independent evidence of a person, known to the woman’s family for over 50 years, about actively participating in reconciliation efforts, but having no knowledge about any dowry demand. "This casts serious doubts upon the veracity of the allegations." The court underlined the legal requirements and said cruelty had to be done with the intention of causing grave injury, driving the victim to commit suicide or inflicting grave injury upon herself. "Allegations levelled in the FIR do not reveal the existence of such cruelty. The prosecution could not establish that respondent 2 was subjected to cruelty to meet unlawful dowry demands, as the same has been disputed by an independent witness," the order said. The allegations against the brother-in-law, on the other hand, were stated to be "vague and omnibus in nature". Setting aside the guilty order, the court acquitted the duo. Advocate Pravesh Dabas appeared for the appellants. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.