The aim was to put pressure on the husband… Supreme Court canceled the dowry case and said, what else did it say?

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday quashed the dowry harassment case filed against a woman’s in-laws. The matter was from Latur, Maharashtra. The top court said that the woman had filed the case with the aim of pressurizing her husband for divorce. The court further said that continuing the case in the present case would be an abuse of the legal process. In its decision, the court said, ‘We are coming to the conclusion that this action was initiated by the complainant woman to put pressure on her husband to agree to the divorce and it was used by the complainant woman as a weapon in a personal marital dispute. Used as ‘. A bench led by Justice BR Gavai heard the petition filed by the petitioner in-laws. Earlier, the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court had decided not to quash the criminal case. After this the decision was challenged in the Supreme Court. In the case, the woman had alleged that her husband’s parents forced her to have an abortion by feeding her adulterated food. The in-laws were also accused of mental and physical cruelty against the woman for not giving birth to a son. The in-laws were also accused of crime under IPC section 498A, section 312/313 (causing abortion).

The Supreme Court said that the complaint regarding abortion and cruelty was given to the police two years after the incident. Also, there was no evidence to show that the woman’s in-laws forced her to consume any substance to get an abortion. The bench led by Justice Gavai set aside the Bombay High Court’s decision. The court said that a mere allegation of cruelty does not constitute a crime unless the cruelty is done with the intention of causing grievous hurt, abetment of suicide, or causing grievous hurt to the victim herself. The court said that the allegations made by the complainant woman against her in-laws in the case were vague and general. These allegations lacked specific facts of cruelty or ill-treatment.

‘…but there is no specific allegation of any injury’

In the present case, the allegations made in the FIR do not indicate the existence of any such offence. There is only one allegation that the woman’s husband beat her but there is no specific allegation for any such injury. The court also expressed doubt as to why the complainant did not include specific details of the offense of cruelty or abortion in the divorce proceedings. Filing FIR with a delay of two years raises questions about the intentions of the complainant. The court concluded that the FIR was filed in retaliation so as to exert pressure during the divorce proceedings. The decision cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in which concerns were expressed over the misuse of Section 498A.