New Delhi: The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court – in an order that has invited outrage on social media – has said that a man’s family not allowing his wife to watch television or venture out alone for any reason, and making her sleep on a carpet do not constitute ‘cruelty’ in the eyes of the law.
LiveLaw has exclusively reported that on October 17, a single-judge bench of Justice Abhay S. Waghwase quashed a 20-year-old trial court order convicting the man and his family of cruelty under section 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment to suicide) of the Indian Penal Code.
The woman married the man on December 24, 2002. Her family had alleged that following a period of torture, she died by suicide on May 1, 2003. The trial court’s conviction order came in 2004.
The family was convicted for taunting her over meals that she prepared, not allowing her to watch TV, not letting her meet neighbours or visit the temple alone, making her sleep on a carpet, and so on.
Justice Waghwase held that none of these crimes were ‘severe’. He said:
“…[B]ut in the considered opinion of this court, none of the allegations has any severity or such nature of allegations would not constitute physical and mental cruelty as almost allegations are pertaining to domestic affairs of the house of accused”.
The judge claimed that not much of what was done to the woman can be termed harassment.
“Merely sleeping on carpet also would not amount to cruelty. Similarly, what sort of taunting was made and by which accused is not getting clear. Likewise, preventing her to mix with neighbour also cannot be termed as harassment,” he said, according to LiveLaw.
To the family’s contention that the woman used to be sent out to fetch water at midnight, the judge said that in the Varangaon village, water would usually come at that time.
Several commentators on social media have posted against the judgement, noting that women appear uniquely disadvantageous in the institution of marriage in India.
“Indian women should just stop getting married. Marital rape is legal, daughter in laws being treated like slaves is legal, men are incels and misogynists and women don’t want them, arranged marriages happen only when a woman’s family pays dowry. Marriages don’t work for women,” X user @mssakshinarula wrote.
“Not allowing” 🤔 That’s a typical patriarchal mindset, but surprised that even courts are a party to this regressive approach,” wrote @manoj_216 on X.
“If treating a daughter-in-law as a captive servant isn’t considered cruelty, then please define cruelty—it would certainly make life easier for all,” another commentator, @Indian10000000, wrote.
The Bombay high court has made news for controversial judgments before. In 2021, the Supreme Court set aside a judgment which held that ‘skin-to-skin’ contact is necessary for the offence of sexual assault under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.