JUDGMENT - M.F. SALDANHA, J.:---This proceeding present a new dimension to the interpretation of the concept of cruelty as embodied in section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It concerns an area of immense importance because the point at issue is the question as to whether the institution of vexatious legal proceedings by a husband coupled with the misuse of the Court machinery and processes would be tantamount to cruselty as contemplated by section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Break-down of the material status is invariably accompanied by the generation of bostility and litigation is an inevitable fall-out. Apart from the normal run of proceedings before the Matrimonial Court, the familiar accompaniment to such a hostile atmosphere is the initiation of other civil and/or criminal proceedings in relation to property matter, etc. the majority of which are virtually superfluous. In the supercharged atmosphere of hostility, the institution of such proceedings could have harsh consequences particularly when search warrants, attachment and such other orders are obtained and executed with a degree of sadastic vengeance. Cruelty has no definable paraments. It involves Acts the result of which cause hurt and often-times agony to the opposite party, be it mental or physical, which in turn has further damaging consequences, the most serious of which is an ultimate suicide. The question, therefore, arises as to whether in a situation of the present type where the wife is at the receiving end, she would be justified in prosecuting the husband for an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code if the harassment and torture, which she went through in the course of those unjustified proceedings, were so serious as to drive into a fit of desperation or push her to suicide. First the facts.

2. This Criminal Revision application has been preferred by the petitioner-wife who was the original complainant in Criminal Case No. 829 of 1985 filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 4, Pune. The complaint alleges offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code against the present respondent No. 1 who was her husband. The trial Court, after a rather protracted hearing, held that the charge was established and convicted the husband for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

3. Against this order of conviction, the husband filed an appeal to the Sessions Court at Pune, which was a numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 1989. The appeal came to be decided on 20-2-1990. The learned Sessions Judge, after a detailed consideration of the case and the law on the point, confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court. However, on the question of sentence, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the sentence of six month's rigorous imprisonment was liable to be set aside whereas the fine of Rs. 3,000/- was enhanced to Rs. 6,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 3,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant-wife. It is against this order that the present criminal revision application has been filed by the wife who has contended that the modification of the sentence passed by the trial Court in appeal was not only legally erroneous but that it results in gross miscarriage of justice. The corollary to this submission is that the respondent-husband should be awarded the maximum sentence permissible having regard to the gravity of the present case.

4. The point at issue before us is relatively narrow. We are faced with a concurrent finding of conviction recorded by both the trial Court and of the Appeal Court. Mrs. Madhuri Chitnis, the petitioner appearing in person, has very strongly urged interference with the Appellate Order principally on the ground that the degree of leniency shown to the accused cannot pass the test of judicial scrutiny. Mrs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document