Kicking daughter-in-law amounts to cruelty: sc

The apex court settled the issues relating to interpretation of the penal provision, which deals with the offence of subjecting a married woman to cruelty.

The verdict assumes significance as the court's earlier judgement on the issue had sparked a controversy forcing it to set aside its own ruling leading to a fresh hearing.

Allowing a curative petition by National Commission for Women (NCW), the apex court had "restored" the matter for de novo (fresh) hearing in a case in which it had in 2009 had set aside the summoning order by the trial court against the woman's father-in-law and mother-in-law on the allegation of cruelty. The mother-in-law was also accused of kicking the daughter-in-law.

After hearing the case afresh, a bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave a green signal to hold the trial for cruelty which was earlier quashed.

"In view of the above, we unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the complaint petition registered as complaint presently pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, cannot be interdicted but has to be finally concluded by the learned Trial Court.

"We, therefore, dismiss the appeals filed by the accused and in view of the time that has elapsed, we direct that the trial be completed expeditiously and in any case within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the learned trial court," the bench said.

On March 14 last year, the Supreme Court had set aside its own verdict and had decided to hear afresh the issue whether kicking a daughter-in-law amounts to an offence of cruelty punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

The apex court in its order of July 27, 2009 had set aside the summoning order of March 21, 2005 passed by the trial court against a woman's husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law on the allegation of cruelty and breach of trust.

Though NCW was not party in the case, it had moved a curative petition, saying that the apex court's finding that kicking does not amount to cruelty, but some other offence, has far-reaching ramifications.

The court after hearing all the sides said, "The facts, as alleged, therefore will have to be proved which only be done in the course of a regular trial. It is wholly unnecessary for us to embark upon a discourse as regards the scope and ambit of the court's power to quash a criminal proceeding."

"Appreciation, even in a summary manner, of the averments made in a complaint petition or FIR would not be permissible at the stage of quashing and the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it. This is the core test that has to be applied before summoning the accused," the bench said.

It said conduct which is likely to cause injury or danger to life or health (mental or physical) would come within the meaning of the expression cruelty.

"While instances of physical torture would be plainly evident from the pleadings, conduct which has caused or is likely to cause mental injury would be far more subtle.

"Having given our anxious consideration to the averments made in the complaint petition, we are of the view that the statements made in the relevant paragraphs of the complaint can be understood as containing allegations of mental cruelty to the complainant. The complaint, therefore, cannot be rejected at the threshold," the bench said.