Recently, the Bombay HC ruled that “if a married lady is asked to do household work definitely for the purpose of the family, it cannot be said that it is like a maid servant”

The bench of Rajesh S. Patil was dealing with the application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

As per the wife she was treated properly for about a month after marriage by the applicants and thereafter, she was treated like maid servant. 

She said that her husband and in-laws started demanding an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for purchasing four wheeler. When she told that her father doesn’t have that much amount, then applicant No.1 – husband had harassed her physically as well as mentally.

High Court stated that” if a married lady is asked to do household work for the purpose of the family, it cannot be said that it is like a maid servant.If she had no wish to do her household activities, then she ought to have told it either prior to the marriage so that the bride-groom can rethink about the marriage itself or if it is after marriage, then such problem ought to have been sorted out earlier.”

The bench noted that in the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. it is stated applicant No.1 had harassed her physically and mentally. Again the details are lacking. Mere use of the word harassment “mentally and physically” are not sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC. Unless those acts are described it cannot be concluded that whether those acts amounted to harassment or subjecting a person to cruelty.

High Court opined that when in this case, the allegations those have been made and the collection of evidence is not sufficient even at this prima facie stage to attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, further as regards offence under Section 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is concerned, it is in fact already conferred under Section 498-A of IPC and unless those other offences are shown which would amount to “cruelty”, offence under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be made out and, therefore, it would be a futile exercise to ask the applicants to face the trial.”

In view of the above, the bench allowed the application of the husband to quash the case under 498A. 

Case Title: Sarang Diwakar Amle v. State of Maharashtra