Supreme Court allows curative petition against 2009 judgment which held that kicking daughter-in-law not cruelty under Section 498A

A special Bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, and Justices Sathasivam, and Singhvi allowed a curative petition filed against a 2009 judgment of Justices SB Sinha, and Cyriac Joseph..A special Bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir, and Justices Sathasivam, and Singhvi allowed a curative petition filed against a 2009 judgment of Justices SB Sinha, and Cyriac Joseph..The petition, filed by the National Commission of Women (NCW), sought a relook at the 2009 judgment which had stated that kicking ones’ daughter-in-law did not amount to “cruelty” as understood under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)..In 2009, one Bhaskar Lal Sharma had approached the Supreme Court against a decision of Delhi High Court refusing to quash summoning charges against him in a criminal case involving Sections 406 and 498A of the IPC..Allowing Bhaskar’s appeal, the Bench of Justices SB Sinha and Cyriac Joseph had held that the allegations of cruelty made by the wife (Monica Sharma) did not attract the provisions of S. 498A..The Bench had held that:.“Allegations that [Monica Sharma’s mother-in-law] kicked [Monica Sharma] with her leg and told her that her mother to be a liar may make out some other offence but not the one punishable under Section 498A.”.The Bench also relied on a 2004 judgment of the Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma v Union of India wherein the Court had observed that:.“The object of [Section 498-A] is prevention of the dowry menace. But as has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. ……But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used as a shield and not as an assassin’s weapon. If the cry of “wolf” is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual “wolf” appears. ….. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide and generalised a statement.”.A review petition was subsequently filed against this decision but the same was dismissed in 2009. It was against this dismissal that the NCW filed a curative petition that was subsequently allowed yesterday..As per this report, the special Bench held that the curative petition was maintainable and set aside the July 2009 judgment. The Bench further directed that the matter be heard afresh before the appropriate Bench. The NCW was represented by Senior Advocate Indu Malhotra, Solicitor General M. Parasaran appeared for the Centre, and Senior Advocate U.U. Lalit appeared for Monica Sharma’s mother-in-law..The full text of the 2009 judgment can be seen below.