Date of the Judgment: 09 April 2019
Citation: Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2019) INSC 299
Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, L. Nageswara Rao, J., Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
Can a woman, who has faced cruelty in her marital home and is forced to seek shelter at her parental home, file a case against her husband and in-laws in the jurisdiction of her parental home? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a significant judgment, clarifying the scope of jurisdiction in cases of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that the mental trauma and psychological distress caused by cruelty in the matrimonial home continue to affect the wife even after she moves to her parental home, thereby giving jurisdiction to the courts where the parental home is located. This landmark ruling expands the legal recourse available to women facing domestic abuse. The majority opinion was authored by Ranjan Gogoi, CJI, with Justices L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjay Kishan Kaul concurring.
Case Background
The case involves a batch of appeals where the central issue was whether a woman, subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial home, can initiate legal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with her parents or other family members. The appellants in these cases were women who had left their matrimonial homes due to alleged cruelty and sought legal recourse in the jurisdiction of their parental homes. The respondents, typically the husbands and their families, contested the jurisdiction of these courts, arguing that the alleged acts of cruelty occurred in the matrimonial home and not in the parental home.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Various Dates | Acts of alleged cruelty committed by husbands and their relatives in the matrimonial homes. |
| Various Dates | Wives leave their matrimonial homes and take shelter in their parental homes. |
| Various Dates | Wives initiate legal proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the jurisdiction of their parental homes. |
| Various Dates | Husbands and their families contest the jurisdiction of the courts in the parental homes. |
| 09 April 2019 | Supreme Court delivers its judgment, clarifying the jurisdiction for Section 498A cases. |
Course of Proceedings
The Supreme Court noted that there were differing views on the issue of jurisdiction in cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Some judgments had held that the courts in the jurisdiction of the parental home did not have jurisdiction unless there were specific acts of cruelty committed in the parental home. Other judgments had taken a different view, holding that the consequences of cruelty at the matrimonial home continue to affect the wife at the parental home, thus giving jurisdiction to the courts there. The matter was referred to a larger bench to settle the conflicting views.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), which deals with the jurisdiction of criminal courts in inquiries and trials.
✓ Section 177 of the Cr.P.C states that “every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed”.
✓ Sections 178 and 179 of the Cr.P.C are exceptions to this general rule.
Section 178 of the Cr.P.C states:
“178. Place of inquiry or trial .-
(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.”
Section 179 of the Cr.P.C states:
“179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.- When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.”
The Court also referred to the definition of “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.— Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means—
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
The Court also discussed the object and purpose of the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983, which introduced Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to combat the increasing cases of cruelty by husbands and their relatives on wives.
The Court also noted Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which provides for a presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman if such suicide had been committed within a period of seven years from the date of marriage and she had been subjected to cruelty.
Arguments
The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or being driven away from the matrimonial home due to cruelty, would have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The arguments were broadly divided into two perspectives:
✓ **Arguments against jurisdiction at the parental home:**
- It was argued that the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is committed in the matrimonial home.
- Unless there is a specific act of cruelty committed at the parental home, the courts in that jurisdiction do not have the authority to take cognizance of the offence.
- The offence is not a “continuing offence” that extends to the parental home, and hence, the jurisdiction should be limited to the place where the acts of cruelty were committed.
✓ **Arguments in favor of jurisdiction at the parental home:**
- It was argued that the consequences of cruelty suffered at the matrimonial home continue to affect the wife even after she takes shelter at her parental home.
- The mental trauma and psychological distress caused by the acts of cruelty persist at the parental home, even if there are no overt acts of physical cruelty at that place.
- The effects of the cruelty are a direct consequence of the acts committed at the matrimonial home, and this consequence extends the jurisdiction to the courts at the parental home under Section 179 of the Cr.P.C.
- The definition of “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 includes mental cruelty, and the emotional distress suffered by a wife at her parental home is a form of such cruelty.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of Courts at Parental Home |
|
| Jurisdiction of Courts at Parental Home |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue for determination:
- “Whether a woman forced to leave her matrimonial home on account of acts and conduct that constitute cruelty can initiate and access the legal process within the jurisdiction of the courts where she is forced to take shelter with the parents or other family members.”
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether courts at the parental home have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. | Yes, depending on the factual situation. | The court held that the mental trauma and psychological distress caused by cruelty in the matrimonial home continue to affect the wife even after she moves to her parental home. This constitutes a “consequence” of the cruelty, thus giving jurisdiction to the courts where the parental home is located under Section 179 of the Cr.P.C. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
✓ **Cases:**
| Case Name | Court | Legal Point | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Y. Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another (2004) 8 SCC 100 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction in Section 498A cases | The Court noted that in this case, it was held that if no specific act of cruelty was committed in the parental home, the courts in that jurisdiction would not have jurisdiction. |
| Ramesh and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 3 SCC 507 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction in Section 498A cases | The Court noted that this case also held that the courts in the jurisdiction of the parental home would not have jurisdiction unless specific acts of cruelty were committed there. |
| Manish Ratan and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (2007) 1 SCC 262 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction in Section 498A cases | The Court noted that this case also held that the courts in the jurisdiction of the parental home would not have jurisdiction unless specific acts of cruelty were committed there. |
| Amarendu Jyoti and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (2014) 12 SCC 362 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction in Section 498A cases | The Court noted that this case also held that the courts in the jurisdiction of the parental home would not have jurisdiction unless specific acts of cruelty were committed there. |
| Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997) 5 SCC 30 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction in Section 498A cases | The Court noted that in this case, the Court held that if the husband committed acts of cruelty at the parental home, the courts there would have jurisdiction. |
| Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar and Another (2011) 11 SCC 301 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction in Section 498A cases | The Court noted that in this case, the Court held that the consequences of the offence under Section 498A occurred at the parental home, giving jurisdiction to the courts there. |
| State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal & Anr. (2003) 11 SCC 126 | Supreme Court of India | Jurisdiction in Section 498A cases | The Court noted that in this case, the Court held that if the miscarriage was caused at the parental home due to cruelty at the matrimonial home, the courts there would have jurisdiction. |
| State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi (1972) 2 SCC 890 | Supreme Court of India | Definition of “continuing offence” | The Court relied on this case to define a “continuing offence” as one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. |
✓ **Legal Provisions:**
| Provision | Statute | Description | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 177 | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Ordinarily, every offence shall be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. | The Court noted that this is the general rule regarding jurisdiction. |
| Section 178 | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Place of inquiry or trial when the offence is committed in multiple local areas or is a continuing offence. | The Court stated that this section is an exception to Section 177, and allows for jurisdiction in cases where the offence is committed partly in one area and partly in another or is a continuing offence. |
| Section 179 | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues. | The Court stated that this section is an exception to Section 177, and allows for jurisdiction in cases where the consequence of an act occurs in a different jurisdiction. |
| Section 498A | Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. | The Court analyzed the definition of “cruelty” under this section. |
| Section 113A | Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman. | The Court noted the relevance of this section in cases of cruelty leading to suicide. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or being driven away from the matrimonial home due to acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, depending on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court emphasized that the mental trauma and psychological distress caused by the acts of cruelty in the matrimonial home continue to affect the wife even after she moves to her parental home. This continuation of suffering is a “consequence” of the acts of cruelty and, therefore, the courts at the parental home would have jurisdiction under Section 179 of the Cr.P.C.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Courts at parental home do not have jurisdiction unless specific acts of cruelty are committed there. | Rejected. The Court held that the consequences of cruelty extend to the parental home, thus giving jurisdiction. |
| Offence under Section 498A is not a continuing offence. | Partially Accepted. The Court clarified that while the initial acts of cruelty may not be continuing, the consequences of the acts continue at the parental home. |
| Jurisdiction should be limited to the matrimonial home where acts of cruelty occurred. | Rejected. The Court held that the jurisdiction extends to the parental home due to the consequences of the acts. |
| Consequences of cruelty extend to the parental home. | Accepted. The Court held that the mental trauma and distress continue at the parental home. |
| Mental trauma and distress persist at the parental home. | Accepted. The Court recognized that mental suffering is a form of cruelty. |
| Effects of cruelty at matrimonial home are consequences that extend jurisdiction under Section 179 Cr.P.C. | Accepted. The Court applied Section 179 of the Cr.P.C. to extend jurisdiction. |
| “Cruelty” includes mental cruelty, and emotional distress at parental home is a form of such cruelty. | Accepted. The Court noted that mental cruelty is covered under Section 498A. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ **Cases:**
- The Court distinguished the cases of **Y. Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another (2004) 8 SCC 100**, **Ramesh and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 3 SCC 507**, **Manish Ratan and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (2007) 1 SCC 262**, and **Amarendu Jyoti and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh and Others (2014) 12 SCC 362** stating that the core fact in those cases was that there were no allegations made on behalf of the aggrieved wife that any overt act of cruelty or harassment had been caused to her at the parental home after she had left the matrimonial home.
- The Court relied on **Sujata Mukherjee v. Prashant Kumar Mukherjee (1997) 5 SCC 30** where there was a specific allegation that the husband, after committing acts of cruelty in the matrimonial home, had also gone to the parental house of the wife where she had taken shelter and had assaulted her there. On the said facts this court in Sujata Mukherjee (Supra) held that the offence is a continuing offence under Section 178 (c) of the Cr.P.C.
- The Court relied on **Sunita Kumari Kashyap v. State of Bihar and Another (2011) 11 SCC 301** where there was an allegation that the wife was illtreated by her husband who left her at her parental home and further that the husband had not made any enquiries about her thereafter. There was a further allegation that even when the wife had tried to contact the husband, he had not responded. In the said facts, this court took the view that the consequences of the offence under Section 498A have occurred at the parental home and, therefore, the court at that place would have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in view of Section 179 of the Cr.P.C.
- The Court relied on **State of M.P. v. Suresh Kaushal & Anr. (2003) 11 SCC 126** as the miscarriage was caused to the wife at Jabalpur, her parental home, on account of cruelty meted out to her in the matrimonial home, it was held that the court at the place of the parental home of the wife would have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 179 Cr.P.C.
- The Court relied on **State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi (1972) 2 SCC 890** to define a “continuing offence” as one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all.
✓ **Legal Provisions:**
- The Court interpreted **Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973** as the general rule for jurisdiction, but noted that it is subject to exceptions.
- The Court interpreted **Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973** as an exception to the general rule under Section 177, allowing for jurisdiction in cases where the offence is committed partly in one area and partly in another or is a continuing offence.
- The Court interpreted **Section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973** as an exception to the general rule under Section 177, allowing for jurisdiction in cases where the consequence of an act occurs in a different jurisdiction.
- The Court interpreted **Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860** to include both physical and mental cruelty, and noted that the emotional distress suffered by a wife at her parental home is a form of such cruelty.
- The Court noted **Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872** as relevant in cases of cruelty leading to suicide.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following considerations:
✓ **Mental Trauma and Psychological Distress:** The Court recognized that the mental trauma and psychological distress caused by acts of cruelty in the matrimonial home continue to affect the wife even after she moves to her parental home. This suffering is a direct consequence of the cruelty experienced in the matrimonial home.
✓ **Definition of Cruelty:** The Court emphasized that the definition of “cruelty” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 includes both physical and mental cruelty. The emotional distress and mental agony suffered by the wife at her parental home are a form of mental cruelty, even if there are no overt acts of physical cruelty at that place.
✓ **Consequences of Acts:** The Court applied the principle under Section 179 of the Cr.P.C., which states that an offence can be tried in a jurisdiction where the consequence of an act occurs. The Court held that the mental suffering of the wife at her parental home is a direct consequence of the acts of cruelty committed at the matrimonial home, and therefore, the courts at the parental home have jurisdiction.
✓ **Object of Section 498A:** The Court considered the object behind the introduction of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which was to combat the increasing cases of cruelty against women by their husbands and their relatives. The Court felt that a narrow interpretation of jurisdiction would undermine the purpose of this provision.
✓ **Efficacy of Law:** The Court sought to make the provisions of law introduced by the Criminal Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 more efficacious and effective in view of the clear purpose behind the introduction of the provisions in question.
✓ **Protection of Women:** The Court noted that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, provides a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence, and the definition of domestic violence includes emotional abuse. The Court emphasized that the provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, also encompass both mental and physical well-being of the wife.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Mental Trauma and Psychological Distress | 30% |
| Definition of Cruelty | 25% |
| Consequences of Acts | 20% |
| Object of Section 498A | 15% |
| Efficacy of Law | 5% |
| Protection of Women | 5% |
**Fact:Law Ratio**
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Court’s reasoning was a blend of interpreting the legal provisions and considering the social context of domestic violence and the need to protect women from cruelty.
The Court considered alternative interpretations, including limiting jurisdiction to the matrimonial home, but rejected them to protect women from domestic violence.
The Court’s decision is based on the understanding that the consequences of cruelty extend beyond the physical location of the matrimonial home and continue to affect the wife even after she leaves.
The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring.
The court stated:
“The emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatize the wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes shelter at the parental home.”
“Even if the acts of physical cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home, there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the psychological distress cause by the acts of the husband including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with her parents would continue to persist at the parental home.”
“The adverse effects on the mental health in the parental home though on account of the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A at the parental home.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ A woman who has experienced cruelty in her matrimonial home can file a case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in the jurisdiction of her parental home.
- ✓ The mental trauma and psychological distress suffered by a wife at her parental home are considered a consequence of the cruelty experienced in the matrimonial home.
- ✓ Courts at the parental home have jurisdiction under Section 179 of the Cr.P.C. in such cases.
- ✓ This ruling expands the legal recourse available to women facing domestic abuse.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or being driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This judgment clarifies and expands the interpretation of jurisdiction in Section 498A cases, ensuring that women have access to justice in situations where they have left their matrimonial homes due to cruelty. This judgment has changed the previous positions of law as previously, the courts at the parental home did not have jurisdiction unless there were specific acts of cruelty committed in the parental home.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rupali Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. clarifies the jurisdiction for cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court held that the mental trauma and psychological distress suffered by a wife at her parental home are a direct consequence of the cruelty experienced in the matrimonial home. Therefore, the courts at the parental home have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint under Section 498A. This ruling ensures that women who have been subjected to cruelty in their matrimonial homes can seek legal recourse in the jurisdiction of their parental homes, providing them with better access to justice.