Sisters-in-law compelling woman to show clean house on video call is sadistic: Bombay High Court in Section 498A case

The Bombay High Court recently refused to quash proceedings under section 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man and his family. [Hardik Prakash Shah and Ors. v State of Maharashtra and Anr.].A Division Bench of Justices AS Gadkari and Neela Gokhale observed that the three sisters-in-law compelling the complainant to show on a video call that the house was clean was a peculiar and sadistic form of ill treatment."The allegations against the sisters-in-law pertaining to compelling the Complainant to show them the house cleaned by her on what’s app video call appears to be a peculiar and a sadist manner of ill treatment," the judgment dated July 22 stated..The Court was hearing a plea by the complainant's husband and his family seeking to quash proceedings against them under sections 498A, 406 (criminal breach of trust), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke break of peace) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of IPC..As per the complainant, her three sisters-in-law, who stayed separately from them, used to interfere in her household. She informed the Court that the three had her house help removed and used to compel the complainant to prove that the house was clean on video calls, while also dictating what meals she should prepare throughout the day. She further alleged that her husband used to suspect her character and would dig up quarrels on petty issues. His family also used to berate her on a WhatsApp group.Following the consistent abuse, the complainant was driven out of the house, leading to the first information report (FIR) against her husband and his family..The petitioners contended that the matrimonial dispute had unnecessarily been given a criminal colour. They claimed that the complainant had influenced the police by threatening to implicate them in false criminal cases and was also trying to extort monthly maintenance through a lawyer. They informed the Court that the complainant and her husband had decided to file for divorce by mutual consent, claiming that the complainant was abusing 498A proceedings..The complainant drew the Court's attention to specific allegations in the FIR and underlined that all witness statements corroborated the material in the FIR. He further stated that the ‘Streedhan’ of the Complainant had been unlawfully retained by the petitioners and they had refused to hand over the same. Furthermore, he also contended that petitioners had treated the complainant with utmost amount of cruelty. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Petition..The Court examined the FIR and noted that specific and categoric roles were attributed to each petitioner."A fair reading of the FIR reveals that, the complainant, a woman-a newlywed daughter-in-law was pitted against the might of the five petitioners, who were abusing and ill treating her on petty issues," it stated.The Court determined that the sole aim appeared to be to extort money from the complainant and her parents, which was was apparent from the fact that they refused to return her 'Streedhan'.Thereafter, the Court observed that the three sisters-in-law had subjected the complainant to peculiar and sadistic ill-treatment.All of this, the Court determined, was enough for the complainant to fear that the petitioners were a threat to her life.The Court should not hold a mini-trial at this stage, the Bench said while refusing to quash the FIR..The petitioners were represented by advocate Vrushabh Savla.Advocate Prerak P Chaudhary appeared for the complainant. The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) VN Sagare.[Read Judgment]