Husband, relatives body-shaming wife is cruelty under Section 498A IPC: Kerala High Court
According to a recent ruling by the Kerala High Court, body shaming a wife by a husband or member of his family would be considered cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which punishes cruelty in marriage.
According to Justice A. Badharudeen, body shaming would fall under Section 498A of the IPC’s explanation (a), which states that cruelty is defined as any willful behaviour that poses a serious risk to a woman’s life, limb, or health (whether mental or physical), or that is likely to push a woman to commit suicide.
According to the law as stated above, body shaming and questioning the de facto complainant’s medical background are the accusations made against the petitioner when the overt activities committed here at the petitioner’s (accused) request are assessed. According to the Court’s November 15 ruling, “the overt acts, at the petitioner’s request, are prima facie to be read as willful conduct which are of such a nature to cause injury to the woman’s mental and physical health dealt under explanation (a) to Section 498A of the IPC.”
The ruling was made in a case when a woman accused her husband, his father, and his brother’s wife of being unkind to her during their marriage.
Based on this complaint, the brother’s wife filed a motion in the High Court to have the proceedings against her under Section 498A of the IPC halted.
The main defence put forth for her was that, as the wife of the husband’s older brother, she would not be considered a “relative” for the purposes of Section 498A.
It was argued that only parents, kids, siblings, sisters, and spouses are included in the word. To support this argument, the Supreme Court’s ruling in U Suvetha v. State & Ors. Was cited.
The Court pointed out that the brother’s wife was not addressed in the mentioned case. Additionally, it mentioned that in this instance, the complainant-woman and the brother’s wife shared a marital residence.
The Court decided it was acceptable to dismiss this argument after reviewing rulings and other laws that deal with the term “relative.”
“It cannot be argued that the spouses of the siblings would not qualify as “relatives” for the purposes of Section 498A of the IPC when the married woman begins to live in the matrimonial house where the husband’s brothers also reside with their spouses. Without a doubt, in these circumstances, a husband’s relatives include those who live in the matrimonial home and are related to him, such as the husband’s mother, father, husband, or wife, or a son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew, niece, grandson, or grand-daughter, or the spouse of the husband’s siblings who live there,” the Court stated in its ruling.
The petitioner’s second contention was that body shaming was the only accusation against her.
The petitioner allegedly used to make fun of the complainant’s body type and tell her that her husband might find other women who were more attractive and suitable than her, the court observed in the first information statement. The petitioner used to doubt the validity of her medical degree, it was also said.
The Court concluded that these accusations would, on their face, constitute marital cruelty under Section 498A.
As a result, the petition was denied.
The petitioner was represented by Advocates Thareeq Anver K, K Salma Jennath, K Shamsudheen, KC Khamarunnisa, Rassal Janardhanan A, Arun Chand, Shahnoy Shaji, and Govind G Nair.
Advocates PS Binu and K Seena represented the complaint.
Skip to PDF content
