The main legal point established is that the definition of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code encompasses both mental and physical well-being of the wife, and actions leading to emotional distress and mental agony can constitute cruelty.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Rahul Dev, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Azeemuddin, the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party-State.

3. From perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court, it appears that there were altogether six accused persons including the petitioner and his second wife and other family members. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj vide Judgment dated 09.01.2006 passed in Trial No. 1282/05/1019/06 (arising out of Complaint Case No. 554 of 1998) acquitted other accused by giving the benefit of doubt and convicted the sole petitioner (husband of the complainant) for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine amount, to serve further rigorous imprisonment for 10 days.

4. The sole convict filed appeal before the learned appellate court in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Palamau at Daltonganj, vide Judgment dated 30.09.2013 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 06 of 2006, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 09.01.2006 passed by the learned trial court and thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present criminal revision against the judgment of the learned appellate court.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. He further submitted that there is no allegation of any demand of dowry or property from the petitioner even as per the complainant and accordingly, the nature of cruelty does not fall within Explanation (b) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel further submitted that so far as Explanation (a) of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the allegation levelled against the petitioner is only to the extent that the petitioner solemnized second marriage with Mehnaz Bibi and on account of birth of two girl babies to the Opposite Party No. 2, the petitioner did not maintain her properly and she was ultimately ousted from her matrimonial house. He also submitted that the marriage had taken place on 13.07.1983 and after 11 years of marriage, the complaint was filed in the year 1998, but as per the case of the complainant herself, prior to filing of the complaint case, she was living with her parents for the last three years.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that both the learned courts below have not recorded any finding regarding the nature of cruelty so as to bring charge within the meaning of Explanation (a) to Section 498A of the Indian Penal code.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Manju Ram Kalita –vs- State of Assam (2009) 13 SCC 330, Smt. Raj Rani –vs- State (Delhi Administration) AIR 2000 SC 3559 and Girdhar Shankar Tawade –vs- State of Maharashtra AIR 2002 SC 2078. The learned counsel submitted that in the case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade, it has been held that in order to bring the act within the term ‘cruelty’, there should be a continuous state of affairs of torture by one to another. The learned counsel submitted that the acts and omissions of the petitioner do not come within the term ‘cruelty’ as defined in Explanation (a) of Section 498A the Indian Penal Code and therefore, in the present case, the impugned judgment suffers from perversity and error of law.

Arguments on behalf of the Opposite Party-State

8. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party-State, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer submitted that the learned courts below have given concurrent finding of facts and have found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code