Such behaviour amounts to ‘cruelty’ as defined under section 498-A of the IPC. (Representational)
Mumbai:
The Bombay High Court has held that not letting a child meet her mother amounts to ‘cruelty’ under the Indian Penal Code, and refused to quash a First Information Report registered against the in-laws of a Jalna-based woman.
A bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi at Aurangabad noted in its order of December 11 that the woman’s daughter, only four years old, is being kept away from her despite a lower court’s order.
“Keeping a young child of four years away from her mother also amounts to mental harassment, amounting to cruelty in as much as it would certainly cause grave injury to the mental health of the mother,” the HC said.
Such behaviour by in-laws amounts to ‘cruelty’ as defined under section 498-A of the IPC, the court added.
“The mental harassment is continuing from day to day till date. It is a continuing wrong,” the bench observed.
It would not quash the FIR as this was not a fit case for the court to interfere, it added.
The woman’s father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law had sought quashing of the 2022 FIR registered against them in Jalna district of Maharashtra for alleged cruelty, harassment and criminal intimidation.
As per the complainant, she got married in 2019 and had a daughter in 2020. But the husband and his family members started demanding money from her parents and abused her physically and verbally, she claimed.
In May 2022, the woman was allegedly thrown out of the matrimonial house and not allowed to take her daughter with her.
She then filed an application before a magistrate’s court seeking her daughter’s custody. In 2023, the court ordered the husband to hand over custody of the child to the mother, but the order was not complied with and the child continues to remain with the husband, the woman stated in the high court.
The bench noted that although the child was with the husband, the applicants (in-laws) were assisting him by keeping his whereabouts secret.
Those who do not have respect for judicial orders are not entitled to relief, the high court remarked.
The trio in their petition denied the allegations of cruelty and harassment, and claimed to have been implicated in a false case.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
