‘Cruelty Committed By A Woman Against Another Woman More Serious’: Supreme Court Upholds 80 Yr Old Mother-in-Law’s Conviction Under Section 498A IPC

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:5 mins read

‘Cruelty Committed By A Woman Against Another Woman More Serious’: Supreme Court Upholds 80 Yr Old Mother-in-Law’s Conviction Under Section 498A IPC

Case: Meera v. State By the Inspector of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai

Coram: Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 31 Of 2022

Court Observation: “Being a lady, the appellant, who was the mother-in-law, ought to have been more sensitive vis-à-vis her daughter-in-law. When an offence has been committed by a woman by meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable”

“The victim was staying all alone with her in-laws. Therefore, it was the duty of the appellant, being the mother-in-law and her family to take care of her daughter-in-law, rather than harassing and/or torturing and/or meting out cruelty to her daughter-in-law regarding jewels or on other issues. Therefore, as such, no leniency is required to be shown to the appellant in this case. There must be some punishment for the reasons stated hereinabove. However, considering the fact that the incident is of the year 2006 and at present the appellant is reported to be approximately 80 years old, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as a mitigating circumstance, we propose to reduce the sentence from one year R.I. to three months R.I. with fine imposed by the Trial Court to be maintained.”

It is required to be noted that as such the Trial Court has imposed the sentence of one year R.I. for the offence under Section 498A. However, the punishment could have been upto three years R.I. At the time when the incident occurred, the appellant was approximately between 60-65 years. The incident is of the year 2006. Therefore, merely because long time has passed in concluding the trial and/or deciding the appeal by the High Court, is no ground not to impose the punishment and/or to impose the sentence already undergone.”

Previous Posts

ORDER XXXVII Rule 3 CPC- Grant Of Leave To Defend Is The Ordinary Rule; Denial An Exception: Supreme Court

Foreign Court’s Sentence On Repatriated Indian Convict Not To Be Reduced Just Because It Is Higher Than Similar Sentence In India: Supreme Court

Decree For Specific Performance Can’t Be Obtained Behind The Back of A Bona-Fide Purchaser: Supreme Court

Section 304B IPC- Demand Of Money For Construction Of A House Is A ‘Dowry Demand’: Supreme Court

If Fraudulent Affairs Of Company Are Continuing, Right To Seek Winding Up Becomes Recurring: Supreme Court In Antrix-Devas Case

Family Courts Expected To Act With Due Application Of Mind Without Being Hyper- Technical, Should Have Litigant Friendly Approach: Delhi High Court Download Judgement