Legal Reference Library

In State Of Maharastra vs Ramesh More & Ors, the Bombay High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Maharashtra against a trial court order acquitting the accused in an abetment of suicide case. Justice PN Deshmukh upheld the order by the Additional Sessions Judge of the trial court in a judgement dated May 11, 2017.

A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court has reiterated that one of the essential ingredients of dowry death under Section 304B of the Penal Code is that the accused must have subjected the woman to cruelty in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death and that this ingredient has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and only then the court will presume that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. A bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Amitava Roy acquitted accused in-laws in a dowry death case, holding that the prosecution failed to prove this indispensable component of Sections 304B and 498A of the Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt. The court also held that the factum of unnatural death in the matrimonial home and that too within seven years of marriage, therefore, is thus ipso facto not sufficient to bring home the charge under Sections 304B and 498A of the Code against them. Two pe...

Quashing a family court verdict, the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court allowed an Amravati woman to end her marriage by ruling that “suspecting wife’s character is cruelty to her”. The wife, an engineer, had approached the family court for divorce after 13 years of tumultuous marriage citing her husband’s supposed inferiority complex and continual ill-treatment, including bouts of physical abuse. “It is clear husband’s conduct in suspecting wife’s character, physically assaulting and harassing her, as she was coming home late from work due to nature of her job, are the facts duly established amounting to cruelty. Therefore, the wife is entitled to a decree of divorce on same ground,” a bench of Justice Vasanti Naik and Justice Indira Jain held. After entering into matrimony on March 11, 2000, the couple started residing in Wardha in a joint family. Soon cracks appeared in marriage as petitioner’s in-laws were allegedly uncomfortable with her educational qualifications. Though she op...

Dismissing wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights, Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court ruled that allegations of impotency against husband amounts to cruelty and he is entitled for divorce. "No husband would like to hear that he was impotent for about six to seven months after the marriage. If that was not true, allegations would surely hurt a man's ego. Before levelling them against the husband, the wife should have given some thought," a division bench comprising Justice Vasanti Naik and Justice Swapna Joshi stated. The couple entered into matrimony on September 27, 2007, but problems started as they used to reside in a joint family. After honeymoon period, the wife started disrespecting her in-laws and abusing them. She also pressurized the husband to live separately and refused to do household daily chores. She used to threaten husband to implicate him and in-laws under false charges and made a startling allegation that he was impotent during initial period...

Bombay High Court has recently acquitted an Accused who challenged his conviction under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code [Subhash Purandas Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra]. Originally he was charged with the Offences under Sections 306 IPC and 498A. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- for S.498A. He was acquitted of offence under Section 306 of IPC . The Prosecution Case was that the Accused’s wife committed suicide because of his Cruelty with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/-. The trial Court considered the evidence which was brought and recorded findings that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim had committed suicide or that the accused had abetted the committing of suicide by the victim. It also held that it was not proved that the Victim was subjected to cruelty of such a nature which would drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to herself. The trial Court, however, held...