Supreme Court: Custody of Bridal Jewelry is not 'Cruelty'

The Supreme Court stated that, given the nature of the allegations, it is unclear how and why the petitioner should have been detained in India.
Supreme Court: Custody of Bridal Jewelry is not 'Cruelty'

Custody of bridal jewelry in not cruelty for security 

Image by- Tribune India

The Supreme Court has said that keeping a daughter-in-law's jewelry for security cannot be treated as cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A bench of Justices comprising Indira Banerjee and JK Maheshwari held that failure to control an independent adult brother or to advise the sister-in-law to pacify her in order to avoid opposition does not amount to cruelty to the bride under Section 498A of the IPC. These observations were made by the Supreme Court while hearing an appeal filed against an order issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Section 498A criminalizes cruelty to a woman committed by the husband or his relatives. A woman filed a cruelty case against her husband and in-laws for the same.

Section 498A refers to subjecting a woman to the cruelty of her husband or a relative of the husband. A woman has filed a case of cruelty against her husband and in-laws. The High Court has dismissed the plea of ​​the woman's husband seeking permission to return to the US in light of the same. The woman's husband works in America. The High Court has rejected the person's request to leave the country as he was guilty of sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 34 (common intention), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 498A, and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

<div class="paragraphs"><p>Supreme Court&nbsp;</p></div>

Supreme Court 

Image by- DNA India

Allegation on mother-in-law and brother-in-law

According to the Supreme Court, the complainant (daughter-in-law) has not provided any details about the jewelry allegedly stolen by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. There has also been no discussion about whether the petitioner owns any jewelry. There is only one common allegation that all of the accused have ruined the complainant by way of misrepresentation, concealment of facts, etc.

Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kurukshetra remarked...

The Supreme Court stated that, given the nature of the allegations, it is unclear how and why the petitioner should have been detained in India.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kurukshetra erred in directing the appellant not to leave the country without the Court's prior permission. The Supreme Court observed that the allegations in the petitioner's complaint do not appear to disclose any violation of Section 498A.

Like Follow us on :- Twitter | Facebook | Instagram | YouTube

<div class="paragraphs"><p>Custody of bridal jewelry in not cruelty for security&nbsp;</p></div>
COVID-19 Test not Needed if Exposed to Corona Patient, ICMR's New Advisory

Related Stories

No stories found.
Since Independence
www.sinceindependence.com