LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     28 October 2010

HC saysit is husband's duty to protect wife abused by inlaws

MUMBAI: It's the husband's duty to support his wife and protect her if she faces harassment from her in laws, the Bombay HC has said. Twenty-one years after he was charged with driving his wife to commit suicide for failing to meet his demands for dowry, a division bench of Justice P B Majumdar and Justice Anoop Mohta upheld a trial court's order, sentencing the 52-year-old Satara resident to three years in jail.

The judges took the opportunity to advise families that they had an obligation to care for their son's brides. " Girls leave their maternal house with tearful eyes hoping that they will get love and affection in the matrimonial house. At least, she would expect that during the good or bad days, her husband would be at her side," said the judges. According to them, it is expected of the husband to take care of his wife; even the father-in-law and mother-in-law are expected to treat the bride as their daughter and for all practical purposes, the parents of the husband should treat the daughter-in-law as their daughter.

"The husband should always be at the side of the wife; even if there is any harassment or ill-treatment on the part of other family members, it is the duty of the husband to protect his wife," said the judges while delivering a judgment in the 21-year-old case.

The incident dates back to June 14, 1989, when a young Sushma, who had married Mrityanjay Pawar two years earlier, was rushed to the hospital with 100 % burns. Though initially it was claimed that she had died when the stove burst and had in fact given a statement to that effect, the truth came out soon enough. The police found a suicide note that Sushma had written a day prior to the incident, about enduring ill-treatment and beatings from her husband for being unable to fulfill his demands for a cupboard, tape recorder and a gas connection. In her dying declaration, Sushma told the police that following a quarrel the previous day, she had set herself ablaze.

Pawar was arrested and released on bail in a few months. He and his family stood trial and a sessions court convicted them of abetting Sushma's suicide in 1990. The matter came up before the BombayHC, this year. The HC acquitted Pawar's father and sister but said there was enough evidence to prove that he had subjected Sushma to cruelty.

"There is no doubt that in the present case, the husband made demands to the girl and her parents for various articles," said the judges. The HC refused to show any leniency to Pawar on the grounds that several years had passed after the incident.

The court held Pawar guilty of dowry harassment and abetting his wife's suicide. It sentenced him to three years' imprisonment. Pawar has eight weeks to surrender to the police, ruled the court.



 22 Replies

Swathi S Bhat (Advocate)     28 October 2010


Really, it is the duty of every husband to give moral support to his wife while she was in trouble.  The judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court is very appreciable one.  But in practice, the real sufferers are not getting any justice.  Now-a-days justice can be purchased by money.  Law must stretch its hand to the real sufferers or who are economically poor. 

With regards


1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     28 October 2010

while some husbands abuse the wife willingly owing to bad temperament,some do when when provked by inlaws or keep quiet when inlaws abuse their wives.


they feel that if they protect the wife,their relatives will call them joru ka they dont protect.

1 Like

Anonymous1 (fjslfj;)     28 October 2010

To add, many women feel protected only when their husband and in-laws do whatever they say....if they disagree then they feel unprotected and mentally harassed..

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     28 October 2010


the thread here is discussing an "innocent harassed wife" who rightly needs husband's protection;not vice versa..


I  agree with the judgment but not with the interpretation and sisterhood wants to drive at.


In this case the girl was abused and hunband took the side of the wrong --so this judgment.  Sisterhood here wants us to believe that court has directed to husband to take side of wife no matter what.


While professing that husband should take side of wife irrespective of the facts -- posters have shown their biasness.


It is simple --- as a third person, any human being is expected to support the side of truth -and this judgment corraborates that.

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     28 October 2010

dear avinash


very nice of you to agree that the abused wife needs protection.

now  tell me my "EXACT WORDS" in this thread where i said that husband shud take the side of the wife  NO MATTER WHAT..








You are caught again - why you feel that my post was directed at you ? Chor kei darhi mein TINAKA.


Have you read posting which says

'Really, it is the duty of every husband to give moral support to his wife while she was in trouble.


Why is is husband duty. If it is self created problem - go ahead face it.  If wife have abused somebody and she is facing the heat - let her problem be her tutor.

And what do you want us to understand by your posting when you say


'while some husbands abuse the wife willingly owing to bad temperament,some do when when provked by inlaws or keep quiet when inlaws abuse their wives.


they feel that if they protect the wife,their relatives will call them joru ka they dont protect.'


you are showing your biase. Why you are not talking about terrorist woman who terrorise their in laws and still  want get support of their husband and if he backs uses the line -  DAR LAGATA HAI KYA JORU KA GULAM KAHLANEI SEI


Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     28 October 2010



one advice..if u takeit +vely....take some res,.relax and then read with an open mind to understand wots being discussed here.dont act aggressively wenever a new issue comes'll be good for ur mental and emotional health.

the issue in spotlight is that husband shud protect a "rightful" wife "harassed" by inlaws;not the wife who's abusive.

swati also said same thing....that wen an "innocent" wife is in trouble,ie,when harassed for no fault,she shud be protected by hubby.and u talking of tyrannical 498A wives repeatedly even wen they have no relevance to the topic...


.why wud swati or i say, that too in a public forum accessed by so many advocates and maybe judges also,  that "husbands shud support spoiled and wrongful wives under all circumstances?"


i hope u understood now.


have a good day!!

1 Like

Vinod Kumar Arora (Partner: PATHFINDERS)     28 October 2010

If a man shows the courage and supports his rightful wife against abuse by his family members, I think, more than 50% family disputes will be vanished. The Hon'ble Judges are very much correct in their version and the judgment is an eye opener and this message must be spread to the masses by all to best of our ability.

1 Like




Here you go again -- rather than answering points you are  making personnel comments/.Advise  and showing your attitude - I' am holier than thoug'.


Let me tell you in clear terms -- if your reasoning is flawed and you show your bias in a public forum .. you will get rebuttal as you have been in various threads.

Since you have started giving personnel advise let me give some to you.There are either two options --- to get your thoughts  straight, join elementary classe on reasoning or get yourself treated  in some good medical facility. Hope you have got medical insurance. Your sisterhood will nevfer share honest feedback with you.


For me don't worry, -- I am managing as many people as you may be meeting in a day.

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     28 October 2010

often it happens that wen the hubby is out of the house for his job,employment overseas,etc,the wife is left alone with that time the inlaws become more abusive with the wife since they know their son wont come to know...

 when the son returns,they act extra nice wid bahu whereas the bahu who's frustrated by now acts angrily.but the husband,unable to understand the reasons for her bad temper blames her thus.

when the wife tries telling him wot they do to her in his absence,he's not ready to listen also since he's seen them behaving nicely,while she is angry.

so ultimately she's in bad books..this foolishness of the son encourages the inlaws more and more to misbehave with the bahu in his absence.and thus starts the cycle of domestic violence in his absence

.its all the more frustrating that our laws dont even make the lady abusers of the home respondents in DV case even though max. taunts,remarks for insufficient dowry,for being infertile,etc come from mother inlaws & sister inlaws

 leave a husband and wife alone after marriage without interference,and more than half of them will adjust beautifully with each other..

1 Like



every husband to give moral support to his wife while she was in trouble. 

Now,if we protect the wife, their relatives will call them joru ka gulam.Not joru ka gulam if wife is right then this is bakwas baat(such a rubbish thing) like joru ka gulam.


But remember one thing in a life support for truth, if wife is left alone with that time the in-laws become more abusive with the wife since they know their son wont come to know, the husband should not angry or complain to wife first he has to know who make a mistake ,if in-law make mistake, then husband has to protect his wife and protest to inlaws why they behave like that .In many cases the main cause of braking marriage is their inlaws and without the support of husband and that it creates a distant between them.


Few addition to Roshni's points.


These lines are for Avinash:

Oh God! Please forgive Avinash for he does not know hat he is doing.

When talked to politely, he fights

When talked to strictly, he fights

When not talked to at all, then also he fights


Repeatedly referring to Roshni as "Swati"


A totally gone case! 

1 Like

hedevil hydraheaded (non professional )     29 October 2010

Munne  Ji,

Nam mein kya Rakha Hai....sawti Kahe yaa Kranti yaa Slukaha yaa Sugandhika

what is important is that Avinash ji has expressed his views  and readers can have their take on what he says.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register