The Supreme Court on Thursday recalled a four-year old finding by which it held that “kicking” a daughter-in-law will not amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The judgement of July 27, 2009 was seen as a major roadblock in protecting women against violence in their matrimonial homes.
Bringing their cause before the Supreme Court, the National Commission of Women (NCW) had filed a curative petition to set aside this finding arrived in a case of matrimonial dispute between a Delhi-based couple.
The bench comprising Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, Justices P Sathasivam and GS Singhvi, heard the NCW petition in open court and came to the conclusion that in the larger public interest the order required to be recalled. The Court restored the appeal which was dismissed as a result of this finding by Court and placed the matter for fresh hearing before an appropriate bench.
NCW, though not party to the dispute had approached the Court to render justice to the cause of women which ultimately would suffer on account of such an observation from the apex court. In the present case, the aggrieved wife had alleged she was “kicked” by her mother-in-law.
Section 498A of IPC being a provision related to dowry harassment referred to acts punishable under cruelty by husband or his relatives. For NCW, senior advocate Indu Malhotra argued that Section 498A clearly provides for any act causing grave injury or danger to woman’s health or limb or would amount to harassment with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand. She said that in the present facts, the woman was tortured to coerce her signature on divorce documents. Moreover, the apex court quashed the case against the husband and in-laws at the stage of summoning by the trial court when the evidence had yet to come.
The counsel for the mother-in-law challenged the locus of NCW claiming it was not a party in the previous proceedings. But the bench rejected this objection on the ground that NCW had a statutory duty to highlight violation of laws relating to women.
Also, the bench noted that the issue raised was not limited to the case in question but on the future interpretation of cruelty defined under Section 498A.