Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: June 13, 2022 at 16:56 IST
The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court recently refused to quash a First Information Report (FIR) lodged against a man’s relatives in a Section 498A case, stating that relatives living in distant places can also meddle in a couple’s affairs and harass the wife [Rajesh Himmat Pundkar vs State of Maharashtra].
A Division Bench consisting of Justices Sunil Shukre and Govind Sanap was hearing a petition filed by a husband, his parents, and siblings seeking to have a FIR filed against them quashed.
While the accused lived in Akola district, his parents and a married sister were in Amravati district, and his younger brother was from Pune City. They argued that because they did not reside with the applicant-husband, the allegations levelled against them as in-laws or relatives of the husband could not be held true.
On two grounds, the Court refused to accept the argument in an order issued on June 8.
The Judges stated, “A relative staying away from the husband and wife can and has been seen in many cases meddling in affairs of the married couple and that too of such a nature and to such an extent, as to amount to real harassment”. Furthermore, the Bench stated that the probe into the case was still ongoing and that further material could come as a result of further investigation.
“Then, up till now, we have found that the allegations made by the complainant wife against all the applicants are specific in nature and if their genuineness is to be tested, it would be possible only at the time of trial and not at this stage,” the Bench further stated.
The couple had three children after getting married in 2007. However, the wife discovered in 2017 that her husband was having an extramarital affair. He assaulted her after she confronted him.
In terms of the in-laws, the wife said in her FIR that when she informed her husband’s parents and siblings about his extramarital affair, they began abusing her instead of controlling his conduct. In addition, the in-laws demanded a dowry amount of Rs 50,000.
As a result, the Court refused to dismiss the FIR.
Advocate AB Moon defended the husband and his relatives, while Additional Public Prosecutor I J Damle and Advocate Kirti Satpute represented the State and the wife, respectively.