Penal Code, 1860: s.498A – Jurisdiction – Whether in a case where cruelty had been committed in a matrimonial home by the husband or the relatives of the husband and the wife leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter in the parental home located at a different place, the courts situated at the place of the parental home of the wife have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under s.498A – Held: In the normal course, it is the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed that would have the power and authority to take cognizance of the offence in question – Under s.179, Cr.P.C., if by reason of the consequences emanating from a criminal act, an offence is occasioned in another jurisdiction, the court in that jurisdiction would also be competent to take cognizance – What is to be really determined is whether the exception carved out by s.179 Cr.P.C. would have any application to confer jurisdiction in the courts situated in the local area where the parental house of the wife is located – The provisions contained in s.498A undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the physical wellbeing of the wife – Even the silence of the wife may have an underlying element of an emotional distress and mental agony – Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home – Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter – The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of s.498A at the parental home – The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home – This is the kind of offences contemplated under s.179 Cr.P.C – Therefore, the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under s.498A – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.177, 178, 179 – Crime against women – Evidence Act, 1972 – s.113A.
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Object behind its enactment – discussed.
Words and phrases: Cruelty – Meaning of – Discussed. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contemplates that “every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed”. Therefore, in the normal course, it is the court within whose local jurisdiction the offence is committed that would have the power and authority to take cognizance of the offence in question. [Para 6][584-D]
1.2 Section 178 creates an exception to the “ordinary rule” engrafted in Section 177 by permitting the courts in another local area where the offence is partly committed to take cognizance. Also if the offence committed in one local area continues in another local area, the courts in the latter place would be competent to take cognizance of the matter. Under Section 179, if by reason of the consequences emanating from a criminal act an offence is occasioned in another jurisdiction, the court in that jurisdiction would also be competent to take cognizance. Thus, if an offence is committed partly in one place and partly in another; or if the offence is a continuing offence or where the consequences of a criminal act result in an offence being committed at another place, the exception to the “ordinary rule” would be attracted and the courts within whose jurisdiction the criminal act is committed will cease to have exclusive jurisdiction to try the offence. [Para 8][585-A-D]
State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi (1972) 2 SCC 890 : [1973] 3 SCR 1004 – relied on.
2. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced by the Criminal Law (second amendment) Act, 1983. In addition to the said amendment in the IPC, the provisions of Sections 174 and 176 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to inquiries by police in case of death by suicides and inquiries by magistrates into cause of such deaths were also amended. Further by an amendment in the first schedule to the Cr.P.C. the offence under Section 498A was made cognizable and non-bailable. Of considerable significance is the introduction of Section 113A in the Indian Evidence Act by the Criminal Law (second amendment) Act, 1983 providing for presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman to be drawn if such suicide had been committed within a period of seven years from the date of marriage of the married woman and she had been subjected to cruelty. The object behind these amendments, undoubtedly, was to combat the increasing cases of cruelty by the husband and the relatives of the husband on the wife which leads to commission of suicides or grave injury to the wife besides seeking to deal with harassment of the wife so as to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property, etc. [Paras 12, 13][586-F-H; 587-A; D-E]
3. Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty. The impact on the mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of the husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma of being driven away from the matrimonial home and her helplessness to go back to the same home for fear of being ill treated are aspects that cannot be ignored while understanding the meaning of the expression “cruelty” appearing in Section 498A IPC. The emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatize the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home. Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress cause by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home. Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental home even though there may not be any overt act of physical cruelty at such place. [Para 14][587-G-H; 588-A-C]
4. The object behind the enactment of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is to provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided under Section 498A IPC. The definition of the Domestic Violence in the Act of 2005 contemplates harm or injuries that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or well-being, whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The said definition would certainly have a close connection with Explanation A & B to Section 498A, IPC which defines cruelty. The provisions contained in Section 498A IPC, undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the physical well-being of the wife. Her sufferings at the parental home though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would, undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A at the parental home. The consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial home results in repeated offences being committed at the parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated under Section 179 Cr.P.C which would squarely be applicable to the instant case as an answer to the question raised. [Para 15][589-D-H; 590-A]
5. The courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A IPC. [Para 16][589-B]
Y. Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another (2004) 8 SCC 100 : [2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 604 ; Ramesh and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 3 SCC 507 : [2005] 2 SCR 493 ; Manish Ratan and Others v. State of Madhya Parade and Another (2007) 1 SCC 262 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR
226 ; Amarendu Jyoti and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (2014) 12 SCC 362 ; Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997) 5 SCC 30 :
[1997] 3 SCR 1127 ; Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar and Another (2011) 11 SCC 301 : [2011] 6 SCR 83 ; State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal & Anr. (2003) 11 SCC 126 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.