Married woman doing household work for family not akin to maid: Bombay High Court – India Today

The Bombay HC has said that a married woman being asked to do household work does not mean that she is being treated like a maid.

Bombay High Court said married woman made to do household work does not mean that she is being treated like maid servant (File Photo)

By Vidya : The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court has said that if a married woman is asked to do household work, then it should not be equated to the work of a maid and would not amount to cruelty. The woman should specify before marriage that she will not do household work if she does not want to do it, said the court.

The bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rajesh Patil said, “If a married lady is asked to do household work definitely for the purpose of the family, it cannot be said that it is like a maid. If she had no wish to do her household activities, she ought to have told them either prior to the marriage so that the bridegroom could rethink the marriage or sort out the matter early into the marriage.”

The bench was hearing a petition filed by a man and his family members against a case registered by his wife for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 498A specifies that if a husband or a relative of the husband of a woman, subjects her to cruelty, then they shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to three years and shall also be liable to a fine. Besides Section 498A, the husband was also booked for offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

The wife had lodged a complaint at Bhagyanagar Police Station, in Nanded District of Maharashtra, against her in-laws and the husband, alleging she was treated properly for a month after marriage, but thereafter, they began treating her like a maid.

The woman also claimed that a month after her marriage, her in-laws and husband started demanding an amount of Rs 4 lakh for purchasing a car, which her father would not have been able to afford. The husband then beat her up and mentally tortured her, the woman alleged.

The accused man and his family told the bench that his wife, who had been married earlier had levelled similar allegations against her first husband. She merely concocts these torture stories, the man submitted. He said that the wife’s first husband was acquitted by the court.

The bench said that those earlier complaints cannot be a reason to conclude that the wife had a habit of levelling allegations and extracting money and such submissions advanced by the husband would have to be proved by him. However, the bench emphasised that the mere use of the words harassment ‘mentally and physically’ is not sufficient to attract provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code unless such acts are described.

“Mere use of the word harassment ‘mentally and physically’ is not sufficient to attract ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC. Unless those acts are described, it cannot be concluded whether those acts amounted to harassment or subjecting a person to cruelty”, the bench said.

The bench quashed the FIR registered by the wife and said, “The allegations that have been made and collection of evidence is not sufficient even at this prima facie stage to attract the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC, further as regards offence under Section 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is concerned, it is in fact already conferred under Section 498-A of IPC and unless those other offences are shown which would amount to “cruelty”, offence under Section 498-A of IPC cannot be made out and, therefore, it would be a futile exercise to ask the petitioner to face the trial.”