Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: October 6, 2022 at 19:40 IST
The Madras High Court has stated that while ruling on marital cases, judges should not disregard the evidence of the woman’s family members just because they are interested parties.
According to Justice P Velmurugan, in these sorts of cases, it is the family members who can notice the incidences and come forward to offer evidence because a third party may not intervene in such things, believing it is a family disagreement.
”It is to be noted that in the matrimonial disputes, only the family members can notice the incidents, which occurred in the home i.e. within the four wall and they can only come forward to give evidence and the third party, even if they also know, will not be ready to give evidence”
“They would think that it is a family dispute and the husband and wife will quarrel each other today and tomorrow would join together why should they poke their nose unnecessarily in the family dispute especially between the husband and wife.”
The court was hearing an appeal from the husband, who had been sentenced under Section 498A of the IPC.
His family members, who had been accused of similar conduct, were acquitted by the lower court due to a lack of evidence.
The appellant-husband claimed that the trial was unfair and that no fair inquiry was conducted. He said that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was contradictory.
It was also claimed that the complaint was not filed promptly following the incident.
In response, the court stated that the simple failure to produce a medical certificate or to file a complaint promptly after the incident was not fatal to the prosecution’s case, particularly in matrimonial conflicts.
This is because a recently married woman will not hurry to the police station to file a report in a dispute, preferring to resolve the issues instead.
In this instance, the wife and her relatives confirmed and verified the events and cruelty committed by the appellant-husband.
Thus, after re-examining all of the evidence, the court found the appellant guilty and maintained the trial court’s decision.